HomeMy Public PortalAbout01_17_2024 BAR Meeting Minutes
LEESBURG BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, January 17, 2024
Town Hall, 25 West Market Street
Council Chamber
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Helen Aikman, Vice Chair Tom O’Neil, Parliamentarian Julie Pastor, JP Andrews, Rick Brown, and Don Scheuerman MEMBERS ABSENT: Judd Fuoto STAFF: Preservation Planner Lauren Murphy, Senior Planner Heather Schmidt, and Preservation Specialist Deborah Parry Call to Order and Roll Call Chairman Aikman called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm, noted attendance, and determined that a quorum was present. Adoption of the Meeting Agenda At 7:01pm, Vice Chair O’Neil proposed a motion to adopt the meeting agenda as revised this evening. The motion was seconded by Mr. Scheuerman and approved by a 6-0-1 vote (Fuoto absent). Approval of Meeting Minutes a. December 4, 2023 Work Session Minutes At 7:02 pm, Ms. Pastor proposed a motion to approve the December 4, 2023 work session minutes as submitted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Brown and approved by a 6-0-1 vote (Fuoto absent). b. December 20, 2023 Business Meeting Minutes At 7:03pm, Mr. Scheuerman proposed a motion to approve the December 20, 2023 business meeting minutes as submitted. The motion was seconded by Vice Chair O’Neil and approved by a 4-0-2-1 vote (Andrews and Pastor abstained and Fuoto absent). BAR Member Disclosures Mr. Brown disclosed that the property owner for TLHPBR2023-0033, 212 South King Street texted him regarding a future development opportunity; however, he did not respond to the message and is able to impartially participate in the review of the application. Presentations & Public Comments None New Cases in the H-1 Overlay, Old & Historic District a. TLHPBR2023-0040, 102 Morven Park Rd NW - Addition Chairman Aikman called this item to order at 8:33pm. Ms. Schmidt noted the structure at 102 Morven Park Road NW is a circa 1963 Cape Cod structure which is listed as contributing in the architectural survey because it was thought to be older than it is. She stated the structure is not considered contributing based on its date of construction; however, she noted it is likely to be deemed contributing following a new survey. She provided a brief overview
of the proposal for a minor addition to the garage, extending it forward into the driveway. She stated many of the existing materials will be reused; however, the new materials proposed are consistent with the Guidelines and character of the existing structure. Further, she recommended approval. The project architects Deborah Buelow and Alessandra Aziza were present as was the property owner, Mary Buelow. There was a period of questions for members of the Board to clarify elements of the proposal.
BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES
January 17, 2024 Page 2 of 4
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT · 25 WEST MARKET STREET · LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176
Telephone 703.771.2765 · Fax 703.771.2724 · www.leesburgva.gov/communitydevelopment
Chairman Aikman opened the public hearing at 7:14pm. There were no petitioners, and the public hearing was closed. There was additional discussion regarding the style of the new windows, and it was noted that the
mixing of contemporary and traditional styles in this instance is appropriate. It was the consensus of the Board that the addition is approvable as submitted. At 7:16pm, Ms. Pastor proposed a motion to approve TLHPBR2023-0040, 102 Morven Park Road NW, as authorized by section 2.3.7 of the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance, in accordance with the information provided by the applicant as revised through January 14, 2024, based on the following
findings: 1. The subject structure at 102 Morven Park Road NW is a five-bay Cape Cod style home with two gable dormers and was constructed in the last half of the 20th century. The architectural survey for the structure indicates it was constructed circa 1940; however, 1957 aerial photography of the site shows that the lot was vacant at that time. Additionally, Loudoun County real estate records for the structure indicate a construction date of 1963. The structure is noted in the architectural
survey as a contributing structure based on the estimated construction date of 1940 (now known to be incorrect). The structure has likely now achieved 50 years of age (the industry standard for identifying historic resources) and, upon a new architectural survey, would likely be contributing to the overall character of the historic district but is viewed as non-contributing at this time. There have been multiple additions to this house over the years, including an existing rear covered porch and deck approved by the BAR in 2019 (TLHP-2019-0145).
2. The proposed addition is minor in nature and consistent with the Guidelines for new construction in terms of siting, attachment to existing, and overall form, scale, and massing. 3. The proposed materials and dimensions associated with the addition request are consistent with the Guidelines for New Construction and are compatible with the character of the existing building. 4. The windows are a combination of reuse and replacement in-kind, consistent with the Guidelines. 5. Alterations to the driveway are minimal and in keeping with the character of the site. The motion was seconded by Mr. Scheuerman and approved by a 6-0-1 vote (Fuoto absent). New Cases in the H-2 and Gateway Overlay, Old & Historic District a. TLHPSA2023-0020, 309 Kellys Ford Plaza SE – Sign Installation Chairman Aikman called this item to order at 7:17pm. Ms. Parry provided an overview of the proposal to replace two signs on the contemporary commercial structure at 309 Kellys Ford Plaza SE within the Oaklawn development. She noted the proposed internally illuminated channel letter signs are less consistent with the Guidelines than the existing signs; however, they are similar to other internally illuminated signs within the commercial development. She expressed concern with the two-color design of the proposed signs, noting that they appear disjointed and read as four signs instead of two. Further, she recommended discussion and deferral to the February 5, 2024 work session. The applicant, Jason Alexander, was present. He provided revised drawings showing new locations for the proposed signs to meet height concerns noted by the Zoning Administrator. There was a period of questions for members of the Board to clarify elements of the proposal. Chairman Aikman opened the public hearing at 7:39pm. There were no petitioners, and the public hearing was closed. There was consensus to support the internally illuminated channel letters for the new signs; however, there was concern regarding the disjointed appearance of the signs and discussion of various ways to provide a more unified appearance. Further, it was the consensus of the Board to defer the application to allow the applicant to review design options with their client.
BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES
January 17, 2024 Page 3 of 4
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT · 25 WEST MARKET STREET · LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176
Telephone 703.771.2765 · Fax 703.771.2724 · www.leesburgva.gov/communitydevelopment
At 7:54pm, Vice Chair O’Neil proposed a motion to defer TLHPSA2023-0020 for the installation of
new signs at 309 Kellys Ford Plaza SE to the February 5, 2024 work session. The motion was seconded by Mr. Andrews and approved by a 6-0-1 vote (Fuoto absent). Continued Cases in the H-1 Overlay, Old & Historic District a. TLHPBR2023-0033, 212 South King Street – Addition and Alterations Chairman Aikman called this item to order at 7:55pm. Ms. Murphy provided a brief overview of the proposal on this property including alterations to the contributing structures at 212 and 210 South King Street, the demolition of a shed, and the
construction of a new infill addition between 212 and 210 South King Street. She noted 210 South King is a historic barn structure which has been altered over time and is now used as a residence. She stated there are several alterations proposed to this structure including raising the height and replacing the siding and recommended discussion of the roof form, and dormer on the north elevation. She stated the applicant continues to propose the removal of the pebbledash stucco at 212 South King, clarifying staff’s support for the retention of this stucco treatment. She stated the revisions to the addition are substantially different from the proposal reviewed in December, noting that massing still remains a concern and additional articulation or change in materials is needed. Further, she recommended discussion and an extension of the critical action date for this application. The applicant, Kevin Ash, and his architect, Michael Wood, were present. Mr. Ash provided an overview of the revisions to the proposal and noted that the engineering and zoning concerns have been worked out with staff. He discussed the need to increase the grade slightly to raise the site out of floodplain backwater and discussed the pedestrian and accessibility enhancements provided. There was a period of questions for members of the Board to clarify elements of the proposal. Chairman Aikman opened the public hearing at 8:50pm. There were no petitioners, and the public hearing was left open. There was discussion regarding alterations to the structures at 212 and 210 South King Street as well as the new construction addition in between. During discussion, Mr. Ash amended his application to clarify that any alterations to 210 South King Street, other than the attachment of the addition, would be presented in a separate application. He also clarified that if there is a need to replace windows in the 212 South King Street structure that he would file for that under a separate application as well. There was additional discussion regarding the need for enhanced articulation on the new addition, a more rhythmic balance to the fenestration, and additional detailing to show how the increased grade may impact the 212 South King Street structure. Further, it was the consensus of the Board and Mr. Ash to extend the critical action date of the application to March 20th and defer the application to the
February 5, 2024 work session.
At 9:24pm, Vice Chair O’Neil proposed a motion to defer TLHPBR2023-0033, 212 South King Street to the February 5, 2023 work session and to extend the critical action date for this case to March 20,
2024. The motion was seconded by Ms. Pastor and approved by a 6-0-1 vote (Fuoto absent). Old Business None
New Business a. Election of BAR Officers for 2024 Chairman Aikman opened discussion of this item at 9:26pm.
BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES
January 17, 2024 Page 4 of 4
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT · 25 WEST MARKET STREET · LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176
Telephone 703.771.2765 · Fax 703.771.2724 · www.leesburgva.gov/communitydevelopment
Mr. Scheuerman presented a slate of officers for the 2024 calendar year, including Tom O’Neil as
Chairman, Helen Aikman as Vice Chair and Julie Pastor as Parliamentarian. There was no discussion.
At 9:27pm, Mr. Scheuerman proposed a motion to approve the 2024 BAR slate of officers as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Andrews and approved by a 6-0-1 (Fuoto absent). Staff Announcements
None Adjournment Chairman O’Neil called for a motion to adjourn. On a motion by Vice Chair Aikman, seconded by Mr. Scheuerman, the meeting was adjourned at 9:28pm by a 6-0-1 vote (Fuoto absent).
Helen Aikman, Chairman
Deborah Parry, Preservation Specialist
January 17, 2024 Board of Architectural Review Meeting
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s
website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
Chairman Aikman: Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the January 17th,
2024 business meeting of the Town of Leesburg Board of Architectural Review. The meeting is called to order by way of roll call this evening. I'm present. My name is Helen Aikman. I'm the chair for 2023. Tom O'Neil is here. He's our vice chair. Our parliamentarian is Julie Pastor, and the other members present are Rick Brown, Don Scheuerman, and JP Andrews. We do have a quorum, and we can go forward. The
next item on the agenda is adoption of the meeting agenda. Could I have a motion to adopt the agenda, please?
Vice Chair O’Neil: I move we adopt the revised agenda that was handed out this evening.
Chairman Aikman: Could I have a second, please?
Mr. Scheuerman: Second.
Chairman Aikman: The motion is from Tom O'Neil. The second is from Don Scheuerman. All in favor?
Board Members: Aye.
Chairman Aikman: Opposed? We have one absence tonight so there's no
opposition to the motion. It passes by a vote of one, two, three, four, five, six to zero with one absence. The absence is Judd Fuoto for the record. The next item on the agenda is approval of meeting minutes. We have two sets of minutes to approve. I think we're going to have to do them separately. One is for the December 4 work session. The other is for the December 20, 2023 business meeting on the work
session. Everyone was present. That's the Monday, December 4th, 2023 work
session so everyone who's present tonight can vote. Does anyone have any concerns about the minutes that they want to discuss before we--
Ms. Pastor: I move approval of the Monday, December 4th work session minutes.
Chairman Aikman: Very good. Do we have a second?
Mr. Brown: Second.
Chairman Aikman: The motion is from Julie Pastor, it's seconded by Rick Brown, I believe. Everyone can vote this evening on this. All in favor?
Board Members: Aye.
Chairman Aikman: Opposed? No. The meeting minutes for the December 4th,
2023 work session are adopted by a vote of six to zero with one absence. With
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
2 | P a g e J a n u a r y 1 7 , 2 0 2 4
regard to the December 20 business meeting, both JP Andrews and Julie Pastor
were absent that evening, so they cannot vote. That leaves four of us to vote. Anybody have issues with those minutes that they want to discuss? If not, could we have a motion, please?
Mr. Scheuerman: I move to approve the business meeting minutes from
Wednesday, December 20th, 2023.
Chairman Aikman: Okay.
Vice Chair O'Neil: I'll second.
Chairman Aikman: The motion is from Don Scheuerman and seconded by Tom O'Neil. All in favor?
Board Members: Aye.
Chairman Aikman: Opposed? The minutes are adopted.
Ms. Pastor: Two abstentions.
Chairman Aikman: Two abstentions. Yes. They're adopted by a vote of four to two to one, the two being two abstentions, Pastor and Andrews, and one absence from
Judd Foto. That's squared away. Next item is BAR Member disclosures. This is an
opportunity for members of the board to disclose any contacts or relationships that they have that they may feel they need to disclose concerning items on the agenda this evening. Do we have any disclosures? Yes, sir. Push the button.
Mr. Brown: Yes, I just pushed it. Rick Brown, I disclose the-- that this is regarding
TLHPBR2023-0033, 212 South King Street, the current owner texted me about a
future development opportunity for which I did not respond to, and I feel I can render any opinions and thoughts on this without any issues.
Chairman Aikman: Excellent. Thank you. Anyone else? Very good. The next item on the agenda is public comment. This is an opportunity for those members of the
public who are present this evening to address the Board concerning items that are
not on the agenda, that are not applications for certificates of appropriateness. Does anyone in the public audience have anything they wish to discuss or comments they wish to make concerning items that are not on the agenda this evening?
Looks like that's a no. We'll move on to item seven on the agenda, which is new
cases in the H-1 overlay old and historic district. The first group, item seven, are
items that are on what we call the consent agenda. These are items that the BAR leadership, which boils down to me and Tom basically believe that the item that's listed under seven can be approved without further deliberation by the Board. No?
Ms. Murphy: Madam Chair, just very quickly, we don't have any item. We don't have
an agenda currently proposed for consent. You could certainly create a consent
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
3 | P a g e J a n u a r y 1 7 , 2 0 2 4
agenda with consensus from the Board, but we don't currently have any items
proposed.
Vice Chair O'Neil: That's a first in a long time.
Chairman Aikman: Okay.
Ms. Murphy: Item 7 is just new cases in the H-1.
Chairman Aikman: Okay. Very good. Thank you. I stand corrected. We don't have
anything on the consent agenda. We're now moving to new cases in H-1 overlay old and historic district. The first case, and indeed the only case in that category is TLHPBR2023-0040, 102 Morven Park Road Northwest, which is an addition.
Ms. Schmidt: Hello. This evening, we have TLHPBR2023-0040 for a minor addition
at 102 Morven Park Road Northwest. The subject structure is a circa 1963,
contributing per the architectural survey that we have in place, but it's non-contributing per the Loudoun County Land Records, but it will likely be deemed contributing with our updated survey within the next couple of years.
It is a five-bay Cape Cod. The minor addition consists of simply extending the garage
out a few feet more toward the front of the home or more into the driveway rather.
The reuse is going to be a window and garage door on the main elevation along with the gutters and trim work that can be salvaged. The previous approval relevant somewhat to the case is the addition of a covered porch and deck in the rear.
This is the existing Northwest elevation and you'll see that the highlighted area in
pink is what's going to be demolished. There's the very minor differences on the
updated elevation proposals. They're going to be doing the same stucco, same roofing, and same trim work window styles as well. For the northeast elevation along the side, the pink highlighted areas are the areas to be demolished as well for a new window insert. The aluminum clad is seen throughout the old and historic district so
no issues there.
The preservation approach of the guidelines is to retain, repair, and replace. That the window, garage doors, gutters, and trims are to be reused represents the best credo of preservation practice, therefore staff does find this consistent with the guidelines and best approach. The proposed addition is a very minor extension of the garage
into a small portion of the driveway that will have to be demolished.
There will be one window infill and the installation of two more windows but in kind on the northeast elevation. The removal of a set of French doors now will be slightly infilled and there will be an installation of a single full white door on that elevation as well. One of the 12 over 12 windows and the garage door on the northwest elevation
will be reused as will the gutters, downspouts, and trim. Any like-new materials
needed will be done in kind.
As for height, width, and directional expression, we find this to be appropriate as it does not alter the height, width, or directional expression of the primary structure nor
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
4 | P a g e J a n u a r y 1 7 , 2 0 2 4
does it alter the view from the public right of way. The location, attachment, size,
subordination, and massing we also find to be appropriate. Even though it's attached to the front of the primary structure, it's very minimal and it's massing and it does no further damage to the primary structure, and it still remains quite subordinate to it. As for the foundation and siding, we also find it to be appropriate as the stucco in place
will be matched.
We find the detailing to be appropriate as the reuse of materials and matching in kind is most appropriate per the guidelines. The roofing materials and design is also appropriate as asphalt is seen throughout the old and historic district and the roofline of the addition continues that of the direction and peak of the roof currently in place.
As for the windows, the aluminum-clad matches those that are currently on the
primary structure. Aluminum clad is also seen throughout the old and historic district.
The new design of the windows on the northeast elevation are only mildly visible from the public right of way, and they do not create any deviation in style from other windows seen in the old and historic district. As for the doors, we also find them to
be appropriate in material and design as those concepts are seen throughout the old
and historic district as well. We do recommend approval of the application based on the following findings that you guys have there, but we also have the applicant here to answer any questions you might have.
Would you like me to introduce?
Deborah Buelow: Hi, I'm Deborah Buelow. I represent--
Chairman Aikman: You should come up to the microphone, please.
Ms. Schmidt: Where would you like them? Would you like to see floorplan? I can get your floor plan again. It won't be big, but I can bring up for it around.
Deborah Buelow: It's okay. I think only if there's questions.
Ms. Schmidt: Okay.
Deborah Buelow: Hi.
Chairman Aikman: You started to identify yourself, if you can do that into the microphone for the record, please.
Deborah Buelow: Got it. Sure. Deborah Buelow, I run Cedar Architecture, so we're
responsible for these drawings and getting this addition put together. This is
Alessandra Aziza. She's actually really responsible. Mary Buelow, you might notice a resemblance. She happens to be my twin sister. [laughs] It actually works sometimes when you work with your family. She's the homeowner. Her husband is not feeling well, so he couldn't join us today.
Chairman Aikman: Thank you. You've had an opportunity to review the staff report?
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
5 | P a g e J a n u a r y 1 7 , 2 0 2 4
Deborah Buelow: Yes.
Chairman Aikman: Do you have anything you want to add to it before we begin our deliberations?
Deborah Buelow: No, we appreciate the findings.
Chairman Aikman: Great. Thank you. [clears throat] Excuse me, the way we
normally go about this is we will begin with a round of clarifying questions from the
Board. Once we complete that, we'll open the public hearing and give the public a chance to comment on the application. Once that is done, we'll close the public hearing and the board will go through a round of deliberations about the application and then hopefully we'll reach a resolution. Tom, if you would begin with the
questions, please.
Vice Chair O’Neil: Just a couple questions. Regarding the windows and the choices that you made on the side elevation of the garage, you've eliminated a double hung and the windows that'll be part of the bedroom suite look more contemporary like the ones you did on the earlier addition. Then the rear windows are double hung with
shutters. Are those the original windows?
Alessandra Aziza: Yes, those are the original windows and we're hoping to keep them. They look in good condition, but right now we're just proposing the new windows on that side of the structure there.
Vice Chair O’Neil: What was the reason behind going with more contemporary
windows on the side elevation versus the more traditional double hung on the rear?
Alessandra Aziza: Sure. Because we wanted to retain as much of the existing as possible, we kept the double-hung windows and we went with the more contemporary windows on this elevation because we have those in the existing 2019 extension around the kitchen. It is in keeping with the rear façade except for those
two windows in the proposed primary suite there.
Deborah Buelow: Actually, I'll just add to that. That tall linear window, that horizontal window we have, that's actually the bed walls, there's not really a good spot to do double hungs or anything more traditional. We needed to increase the height of that window so it really lended itself toward a more contemporary adaptation.
Vice Chair O’Neil: Thank you. That's all my questions.
Chairman Aikman: Julie?
Ms. Pastor: I have no further questions.
Chairman Aikman: Rick?
Mr. Brown: No questions from me.
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
6 | P a g e J a n u a r y 1 7 , 2 0 2 4
Chairman Aikman: Don?
Mr. Scheuerman: No questions.
Chairman Aikman: JP?
Mr. Andrews: No questions.
Chairman Aikman: My only question is for the staff. There seems to be a dearth of
distinctions between what's new and what's old. I gather from the staff report, but I'd
just like you to confirm that the reason that we we're not concerned about that is the size of the addition. It's so minimal that we don't feel there's a need to distinguish it from the existing structure.
Ms. Schmidt: Correct. Yes
Chairman Aikman: Excellent. That was my only question.
Ms. Murphy: We should also note that right now under our current architectural survey, the structures would be considered non-contributing. It was determined when it was reviewed-- [clears throat] excuse me, in 2019, that the house was actually built much later than initially anticipated. We would treat this structure today like any other
non-contributing structure in the district.
Chairman Aikman: Thank you for that clarification. That's helpful. We've completed the clarifying questions. At this point, I'd like to give the public present an opportunity to provide any comments they wish to provide. Anyone coming forward? Looks like that's not going to happen. We opened the public hearing. I'm now going to close the
public hearing and we'll begin with deliberation starting with Tom, again.
Vice Chair O’Neil: My only comments are a little more elaboration on the question about the windows. I think I was on the Board when the previous application came through. I do think in that case, and it continues to be true in this case, that the mixing of the more contemporary windows is a good way to distinguish between the
older part of the house and the new. I think their location has a very minor impact in
terms of what can be seen from the street. I don't have an issue with them. I just wanted to let that be known, even though I question why you did what you did.
Deborah Buelow: It's a fair question.
Vice Chair O’Neil: Otherwise, I think in this case it does make sense to do an
addition that blends in and looks almost indistinguishable from the original because it
is just such a short extension of the existing garage. I think it's approvable as submitted.
Chairman Aikman: Thank you, Tom. Julie?
Ms. Pastor: I agree with Tom. I think that this is appropriate given our guidelines and
also appropriate relative to the structure as it is today.
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
7 | P a g e J a n u a r y 1 7 , 2 0 2 4
Chairman Aikman: Thank you. Rick?
Mr. Brown: I feel the same opinion as Julie. It's appropriate.
Chairman Aikman: Don?
Mr. Scheuerman: Design as presented as appropriate.
Chairman Aikman: Okay. JP?
Mr. Andrews: Yes, it's pretty straightforward. I feel like it's appropriate.
Chairman Aikman: Okay. I would concur with Tom's comments also. It seems like we have a consensus at this point. I can entertain a motion to approve the application.
Ms. Pastor: I move that the Board of Architectural review approve TLHPBR2023-
0040, for an addition to the structure at 102 Morven Park Road, based on the
information provided by the applicant as presented through the BAR meeting this evening, January 17th, 2024. The approval is based on the findings included on page two and three of the staff report prepared by the senior planner.
Chairman Aikman: Thank you. Second?
Vice Chair O’Neil: Second.
Chairman Aikman: Okay. Before we vote, anyone have any additional comments they wish to make about the vote that we're about to take? No. Okay. All in favor?
Board Members: Aye.
Chairman Aikman: Opposed? There's no opposition. The motion passes six to zero
to one, one being the absence of Judd Foto. Thank you very much. Have a good
evening.
Deborah Buelow: Thanks very much.
Chairman Aikman: Okay. That brings us to item eight, new cases in the H-2 and gateway corridor overlay districts. We have one case in that category this evening,
which is TLHPSA2023-0030, 309, Kellys Ford Plaza, Southeast Signage.
Ms. Parry: Members of the Board, this application, as you noted, is for new signage at 309 Kellys Ford Plaza. The building itself was approved for construction by the Board of Architectural Review in 2015. The proposal is to replace the two existing signs. The first being-- Thank you, Lauren. The first being on the primary façade, the
second being on the side of the building, approved administratively under 2016-
2012. Just to note, and I wish I had this laser pointer working. Let's see if this'll work here if I do this. No. Okay.
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
8 | P a g e J a n u a r y 1 7 , 2 0 2 4
Chairman Aikman: I've been here for three years, and that pointer has never once
worked.
Ms. Parry: I know. The sign over top of the main entrance, the black lettering there was previously approved. If you're looking at this screen and you look to the right hand side, or if you're looking at this screen, well, it's also the right hand side. You
see the EIT lettering there, that was not approved to be placed in that location. It was
actually approved to be on the side. The applicant instead installed it there. Here's this sign that is proposed-- Oh, hang on just a second.
In your packet you saw that the applicant had proposed to retain the May building lettering and install the EIT Zollner over top. The applicant has since amended their
proposal and that's being handed out to you now. The reason for this, as noted in the
packet, the zoning administrator noted that the application for the sign permits was originally approved in error. The wall signs were more than 25 feet above grade, which is not allowed under the zoning ordinance, and so the zoning administrator determined that as long as the applicant didn't exceed the height of the existing
signs, they could continue the non-conformity. Exceeding the height of the existing
signs would then broaden the non-conformance and that would not be permitted. We'll have a little bit of change as we go through this application.
You'll see in your revised packet that's been handed out to you, the May Building lettering has been removed, the EIT Zollner has been moved below it. The sign has
been expanded. It was originally proposed at 25 square feet. It's now proposed at
39.62 square feet. As we turn to the side of the building, this sign was always proposed for this location, but it also has been expanded slightly. It was originally proposed at 39 square feet and now is proposed at 53 square feet. The zoning administrator has reviewed this and has determined that it is in compliance with his
determination based on the height of the signs.
The signs themselves are less consistent for illumination and design. The existing signs, the black lettering was not illuminated, the silver EIT had halo illumination. However, within Oaklawn, there are several businesses with internally illuminated signs. The existing halo illumination is more consistent with the guidelines; however,
the internal channel lettering is now prevalent in the Oaklawn neighborhood and
therefore staff finds the change to the internal illumination is also approvable under the guidelines. The proposed sign design, however, is disjointed and gives the appearance of multiple signs rather than a single entity. This EIT Zollner is one sign on the side and on the front it is also one sign. However, they appear as four
separate signs, which would be more than would be allowed.
A cohesive appearance is needed to unify the design in keeping with the traditional character of the building. This could be accomplished in many ways such as unifying the color, unifying the font, what have you. The proposed placement, we already went through the zoning, so I'll skip that. The applicant has provided the
measurements that the zoning administrator required. Staff's recommendation is that
the Board discuss the design. Originally, I proposed a deferral to February 5th. Of course, if we can work out those details this evening, the Board at its discretion could
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
9 | P a g e J a n u a r y 1 7 , 2 0 2 4
go ahead and approve this evening. Otherwise defer to February 5th to allow the
applicant to work out an alternate design that is more cohesive. Should the board find an agreement with the applicant tonight, I've provided staff findings for you here that you can use as well as a motion. We can now eliminate number one under the conditions because, as I said, we've got the signs the height figured out. That was a
little crazy, I know, because of the changes that we got this morning but--
Chairman Aikman: Can I just interrupt you for a second?
Ms. Parry: Yes you can.
Chairman Aikman: Just one point of clarification. I think I understand this, but the black lettering on the front, they're scratching that, right? That's going to be gone,
gone, right?
Ms. Parry: Yes.
Chairman Aikman: All there's going to be is EIT Zollner on the front.
Ms. Parry: On the front.
Chairman Aikman: The logo.
Ms. Parry: They've lowered it.
Chairman Aikman: They lowered it into where the black lettering was originally.
Ms. Parry: Right. We just got that this morning, so staff didn't have an opportunity to update the PowerPoint at that point.
Chairman Aikman: I just wanted to make sure I understood that. Thank you.
Ms. Parry: That's all I have for you at the moment. The applicant I believe is here.
Yes.
Jason Alexander: Good evening, I'm Jason with Vision Signs, Jason Alexander.
Chairman Aikman: Okay. Thank you for coming in this evening. As I explained to the last applicant, we're going to have a round of clarifying questions, then we'll open
the public hearing, and then we'll close the public hearing and then we'll have a
round of deliberations. Why don't we begin with Tom again for the questions.
Vice Chair O’Neil: Debi, a couple more clarifications if I could.
Ms. Parry: Sure, absolutely.
Vice Chair O’Neil: The original sign, the black one that's not illuminated, were you
saying that that was approved too high off the ground?
Ms. Parry: Yes, that's correct.
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
10 | P a g e J a n u a r y 1 7 , 2 0 2 4
Vice Chair O’Neil: Okay, because it looks like it's the only place it could go anyway.
Ms. Parry: It is the natural sign location.
Vice Chair O’Neil: Are those surface mounted? They stick out in front.
Ms. Parry: Yes.
Vice Chair O’Neil: When those are removed, will there be any visible sign, the old
sign since it's not-- or I guess this is for the applicant, since you're going to put a
single sign in the cornice, below where the top, so there's going to be a whole string of the original sign that will be removed. I'm just asking, have you made any plans for repairing what's there?
Jason Alexander: Certainly. I actually installed this set, I guess nine years ago,
something like that. They're pinned down Minnesota letters so there's an average of
four studs per letter, and all of that surface is Dryvit. We will fill and then roll the entire top panel on the lower panel. On the top panel, we had electronic instrumentation and technology stretching pretty much the entire panel. We need to roll that entire panel.
The lower panel, the majority of what we hope the new sign will cover in terms of
painting and that sort of thing. If we find there's a lot of shadowing, then we will probably paint both bands so they both have an equal sun exposure shade to the paint. To answer the question, the top panel for sure would be filled, the hand-painted. The bottom panel, we anticipate filling and we're going to see how the new
sign covers that.
Vice Chair O’Neil: This question is for staff again. The multi-colors, is that allowed by right or I know you're saying it's not keeping with the style of the building and stuff, but is more than one color allowed by the zoning ordinance currently?
Ms. Parry: Yes and by the guidelines as well.
Vice Chair O’Neil: Is there anything about different fonts within the same sign or
anything like that?
Ms. Parry: There's nothing in the zoning ordinance regarding that. The guidelines, it talks about signs needing to have a cohesive appearance and signs needing to respect the character of the building. Staff found that given that the sign, the EIT and
Zollner it's one sign but it looks like two. They have different fonts and different
colors, that's disjointed. It doesn't work with the traditional character of the building. If it was unified color, if it was unified font, I think we'd be more comfortable with either of those. As it stands now, it's too disjointed.
Vice Chair O’Neil: One last question for the applicant based on that comment. Have
you talked to your client about going with a single color or maybe enclosing them in
something to make it look like one sign? I take it, this is currently what their logo is. Is that correct?
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
11 | P a g e J a n u a r y 1 7 , 2 0 2 4
Jason Alexander: Correct. This is two companies merging. Zollner bought out EIT.
Both of them want to be represented in their logo. I spoke with John who's the representative of the company, and said, "Look, can we make this all black?" First of all, we did silver last time with a white halo and they were really unhappy with the result of that sign. They didn't feel like it was very readable and it appeared very
small on the facade. I spoke with John this morning again and said, I need to know
how strenuously you want me to say, "This is our logo," and he said, "This is our logo. I don't want to do black, I don't want to do silver.'
If he is forced and can't have signage, he would probably bend but he's pretty adamant and the owner of the company is pretty adamant that this is our brand, if we
were Northrop Grumman, would you ask us to change our font and our color. That's
how he put it to me.
Vice Chair O’Neil: Okay, no more questions.
Chairman Aikman: Okay. Julie?
Ms. Pastor: I'm just going to follow up on that one because to me it looks like there's
still two different companies, and so it makes it seem like there's two different signs.
If in fact they are merging, then why can't they all be red or why can't they all be blue? Again, I think that might make the point that again, that's one company now. Otherwise I agree with the staff, basically makes it look like they're four different signs. My immediate reaction was, oh, it's two companies and so they want to have
their individual logos on the signs, but the ordinance doesn't allow that to occur.
What you're saying is that the blue EIT is their logo and the red Zollner is their logo and now that's why they can't be one color?
Jason Alexander: Zollner purchased EIT and I guess in their agreement, they had something like, "Hey, we still want to keep part of our brand." Now, that being said, I
realize this is a challenging logo. I had a challenge when trying to figure out where to
put it.
Ms. Pastor: I don't have a problem with where it's being put. Like I said, it just makes it look like there's more than one sign here on there. Again, I think maybe color would do it, and if it's not black, then can it be one of the two colors or can EIT
be more akin in font to Zollner? They look completely different.
Jason Alexander: One suggestion that I had made to the client early on in the process was to make the EIT the same height as the Z and bring it in so that it reads more like EITZollner. If we were to shrink the overall height of EIT and bring it in so it worked with the rest of the font, the rest of the text, I feel like that would help it look
like one sign, one logo.
Ms. Pastor: Yes, it would. Thanks, that's all I have.
Mr. Brown: I don't have any questions.
Chairman Aikman: Don?
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
12 | P a g e J a n u a r y 1 7 , 2 0 2 4
Mr. Scheuerman: The existing signage appears to be a deep bronze going across
the building seems to be quite readable. One of the points you put forward is a question about using silver or this or that and not having it readable. To a degree I understand that, but if you look at the existing signage, it looks very readable in the color that's there. So that they can keep their brand as far as the actual logo style,
why couldn't they use a different color and just unify the two so that it looks like one
sign as opposed to the two that it currently looks like?
Jason Alexander: If we can flip to the other page that has the EIT on the end of the building, there's an actual photo. Can you go to that first?
Ms. Parry: Oh.
Jason Alexander: The first page, that was just. Yes, that one. You can see it down
on the end when it [unintelligible 00:33:11] again, most of this is about internal lighting is what they also want. They didn't feel like there was any night visibility, and there was none on the front facade at night. There was not enough ambient light to get a distance read on the front of the building. The font is architectural. That's the
name of the font. It's very thin stroked. The distance read on that font was not great.
Then the EIT in silver with the white halo, the white transitioning to the silver was not a great transition. They were not a fan of going to silver. I did propose all black. That was my secondary choice for my proposal to them was to make everything black as it would certainly pop on the tan, and it would certainly pop on the brick. At night, you
can't front-illuminate black. You can only halo-light it. Now we drop our reading 50%.
Front illuminated letters will read all the way down Battlefield. Halo-lit letters will read for a couple hundred feet. That was one of their driving forces in the decision was they really wanted more distance read.
Ms. Parry: We do have examples of halo-lit letters in Oaklawn currently, the Chick-
fil-A some of their lighting is halo lit on their building. Also, you'll remember the Sonic
Sign, their wall sign is Halo lit.
Chairman Aikman: How could we forget the Sonic?
Mr. Scheuerman: How could we Forget the Sonic. Yes
Ms. Parry: Their wall sign is halo-lit.
Chairman Aikman: Okay.
Mr. Scheuerman: The only thing that you're offering is what was handed out tonight for our consideration, and we should either accept this or vote it down?
Jason Alexander Well, my client wanted me to strenuously push for their logo as it is branded. If we can come to a consent that I could take back to them and say,
"Look, we couldn't get that. Here's what we can get." I don't know if I can go back to
them with options, or where I'm at. This is all we have presented.
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
13 | P a g e J a n u a r y 1 7 , 2 0 2 4
Mr. Scheuerman: Let me reiterate what I just said. This is the option you're
providing and you're basically saying that we should either accept it or get or deny it. Yes?
Chairman Aikman: That's not what I heard him say. Well, I'm not going to put words in your mouth, but I thought I heard you say if we could reach a consensus on an
alternative, that you would take that back to your client.
Jason Alexander Right.
Chairman Aikman: Yes. Okay.
Mr. Scheuerman: But, this is all we have on the table.
Chairman Aikman: Well, right. I mean, if we said, that's all good, except it all needs
to be red or something, then you're saying you would take that back to your client.
Jason Alexander: Right.
Chairman Aikman: Okay. JP?
Mr. Andrews: You do have a Board member that can empathize and relate. I happen to work for Costco Wholesale, which our signs are red and blue. [laughs] I
do get the point of how it seems like two separate signs where Costco wholesale is
red and blue.
Chairman Aikman: We're still in questions, just so-- If this is a question.
Mr. Andrews: Yes. It is. Well, okay. I'm [crosstalk]
Chairman Aikman: It's okay. I'm itching to jump into comments too.
Mr. Andrews: To get to the question, the point I was making, I feel like Costco
Wholesale is unified as one brand. This does seem a little separated. Could we consider having a hyphen or a dot that's between these two I think would kind of unify it. I thought about could you squeeze it together, but maybe that's a little confusing. Because it is two separate companies, but to have like a blue or a red dot
that's lit in between, pulls it together a little bit. Anyways, that was a question, if you
guys might consider that.
Then the other question I had was really more for staff. I think we were saying that there's a more prominent use of these internal lights in the area now. What is the nearest location? Are they immediate neighbors or do you have to go a ways down
the street to see one?
Ms. Parry: If you're looking at this building to the left, there's a new strip with Five Guys and Dunkin'. They have internally illuminated channel letters right adjacent to this building. Also across the street directly is a Northwest Federal Credit Union bank that also has internally illuminated channel letters.
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
14 | P a g e J a n u a r y 1 7 , 2 0 2 4
Mr. Andrews: Okay. All right. That's my question.
Ms. Murphy: I'll just note, because you weren't on the board when it was approved, that the Dunkin' Donuts, Five Guys building is part of a comprehensive sign plan. That's typically the way we do internally illuminated signs these days, is to make sure that we have some kind of unification or either in terms of the placement of the sign,
the font, the color. Normally when we're seeing internally illuminated signs, we're
seeing them as part of a comp sign plan, which the adjacent Dunkin' Donuts building has.
Mr. Andrews: Okay.
Ms. Parry: This property cannot get a sign plan because it's one company in one
building on the parcel. There's not two businesses on the parcel to create a sign
plan.
Mr. Andrews: Right. Okay.
Chairman Aikman: Okay. I don't have any additional questions. Let's open the public hearing. Any of you gentlemen in the front row care to opine about this? Okay.
For the record, Kevin is in favor. Let's close the public hearing and proceed with
comments. Since this is my last evening as chair of this body, I'm going to lead off of the comments. I don't think it's our job to decide how a business operates or how they design their logos.
I simply don't think that's our job. I agree that it doesn't present in an ideal fashion.
I'm fond of JP's suggestion that inserting something between them, a hyphen or
something like that, that would help create the sense that it's one sign rather than multiple. I did a little search on my phone, there are all kinds of businesses that have merged and have both.
There's FedEx Kinkos, and there's hundreds ExxonMobil of businesses that have
merged and continue at least for some period of time to have both names in their
signage. It's just the way businesses are now. They're very graphically oriented. My personal view is that we can ask them to modify it to create more of the impression of one sign, but I don't think we can bar them from having the logo that they choose as a business to have. That's my personal view. Tom, your turn.
Vice Chair O'Neil: [chuckles] I agree in general with what you said. I do think JP's
idea of the hyphen, or maybe it's a rectangle around the whole thing, something that makes it read as one sign would go a long way towards getting closer to what it seems like the sign ordinance wants the sign to be. I do think from when we first met to review this application, their second proposal tonight has come a long way
towards complying or making an effort to respond to what the initial staff report said.
I appreciate that.
Mr. Alexander: Thanks.
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
15 | P a g e J a n u a r y 1 7 , 2 0 2 4
Vice Chair O'Neil: I would say that's probably about the extent of my comments. I
would like to see if you can go back and speak to your client about [clears throat] that idea of granted it deviates from probably what's on their letterhead or everything else they do, but to me, that's a good compromise. It's a--
Chairman Aikman: Yes. I did notice by the way, that looking at ExxonMobil as an
example, that there's a mix in their signage, or it may have changed over time, but at
one point it was Exxon was in blue and Mobil was in red or vice versa, and then they started going to one color. There're options here for just creating more of a sense of unity.
Vice Chair O'Neil: I would also say if they just went to one color, maybe it's red and
blue mixed together, or purple. I'm not saying the hyphen is the only answer, is what
I mean.
Ms. Murphy: I think everyone needs to go read their guidelines again.
Chairman Aikman: [crosstalk] Go ahead. Go ahead with the guidelines.
Ms. Murphy: No, I'm just saying we're advocating for red, purple signage. You need
to go and read their guidelines.
Chairman Aikman: I think that's a joke.
Vice Chair O'Neil: I was just kidding.
Ms. Parry: I would just also throw into Lauren's point about the guidelines, is the guidelines even in the H-2 strictly speak about corporate signage. That corporate
signage needs to acquiesce to the traditional character of the historic overlay. In this
case, it's Oaklawn, not the H-1.
Chairman Aikman: Right.
Ms. Parry: However, that overlay still applies, which is where staff was coming from in terms of unifying the sign somehow.
Chairman Aikman: The--
Ms. Parry: ExxonMobil absolutely is a FedEx Kinkos. Are those signs in historic districts, what do they look like if they're in a historic district?
Chairman Aikman: Right. My-- Well, okay, go ahead. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt.
Ms. Parry: I was just going to say there's other examples in Town of where we have
asked large corporations and small to change their size, their logo, their font color to meet the guidelines and the character of the building. That's [crosstalk]
Chairman Aikman: Fair enough. What about Oaklawn?
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
16 | P a g e J a n u a r y 1 7 , 2 0 2 4
Ms. Parry: Within Oaklawn, we haven't come up against that except for Sonic.
Where we said that they couldn't have the white background illuminated on their sign because that was in contradiction with the guidelines and offered them another color that they could have as the background on their sign to have the internal illumination. They declined that offer, wanted to stick with the white, so they went with the halo
lighting instead of the internal illumination.
Chairman Aikman: Right. That was their way of staying with their corporate.
Ms. Parry: That was their way of staying with their corporate logo, but the Board would have been well within their rights.
Chairman Aikman: Fair enough. Julie?
Vice Chairman O’Neil: I have just-
Chairman Aikman: I'm sorry.
Vice Chairman O’Neil: -one more comment based on Debi's comment about matching the building. In my opinion in this case, while it has traditional materials and some very interpretive classical detailing, that's why I don't have a problem with
the sign itself. I don't think it pops out like, "Wow, that sign doesn't belong on this
building." In this case, I really don't have a-- I don't think it clashes with the style of the building.
Chairman Aikman: If you put that signage on the Tally Ho, for example, it would be like, "Whoa," right? Anyway, Julie?
Ms. Pastor: I agree in general with what the comments are, but I think your
suggestion, just is twofold, one is that the size of the EIT perhaps being the same size as the Zollner. For me, again, it's a way of making it read as one. The hyphen idea might work as well, but if I were the corporation, maybe I would say Zollner acquired EIT, maybe Zollner goes first, and the other guy goes, if you're going to go
the hyphen route. Again, that's not for me to decide. That's obviously, the corporate
decision there.
I still feel like the colors should be the same. I'm not really telling them what their logo needs to be, I just feel like it needs to read as one sign. That's where I'm coming from. The whole notion of the style of the building, that doesn't bother me at
all. I don't mind the style that's being presented, per se.
Chairman Aikman: Rick?
Mr. Brown: Just a couple of comments. I think it may be a little bit more successful if the company's logo doesn't utilize the entire height of the space and has just a little bit of-- the beige background underneath and below. It just makes it a little bit more
easy to look at the logo. It's just my opinion. I don't want to take your thunder from
what-- do you mind if I comment on that?
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
17 | P a g e J a n u a r y 1 7 , 2 0 2 4
Mr. Scheuerman: Go ahead.
Mr. Brown: He'd found it. It's good. I agree, I don't want to get into what your customer wants as their branding. What he found on the website, if that was just up there, it would look like one sign. It's basically put EI-- the T is too--
Chairman Aikman: What is he looking at?
Mr. Brown: He's looking at the company's logo.
Mr. Scheuerman: On the company internet, you can look them up on with the Google machine, they have the EIT Zollner logo on the splash page. In that, they have a balanced EIT Zollner so that they're the same dimension. The EIT is not greater than the Zollner. It shows a very balanced presentation.
Chairman Aikman: Thank you.
Mr. Scheuerman: That's the company's own logo on its own forward-facing webpage.
Mr. Brown: For my comments, that's the extent that I'll make on addressing your customers' branding is for me and a vote on the BAR. If you did that, a lot of these
problems would just go away.
Chairman Aikman: Wait a second. Hold on. What I'm seeing there doesn't look that different from what I'm seeing on the application.
[crosstalk]
Mr. Scheuerman: That T lines up with the Z. In the bottom, the T lines up with the Z.
Where if you look at the building, the EIT is much bigger.
Ms. Pastor: The dimensions even show it.
Mr. Scheuerman: That makes it look like one sign.
Vice Chair O’Neil: Lauren, can you slide down so we can see both signs?
Mr. Andrews: They actually have the measurements. The EIT is 2.96 and the Z is
2.67. If the Z became 2.96--
Mr. Brown: On the website, it lines up. On this, it doesn't. That's the extent of--
Chairman Aikman: Okay. That's good.
Mr. Brown: For me, for my comment, if that's your customer's brand, then I have no comment. That makes more sense.
Chairman Aikman: Julie, if they did it that way, would you be satisfied?
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
18 | P a g e J a n u a r y 1 7 , 2 0 2 4
Ms. Pastor: I'd still feel like it should be the same color, but I'm only one--
Chairman Aikman: The size difference is significant to you?
Ms. Pastor: The size difference is significant.
Chairman Aikman: No, to you, in your decision-making. In other words, if it was aligned with what we're seeing on the web, you would find it more palatable?
Ms. Pastor: Correct.
Chairman Aikman: Good. Thank you, Don.
Mr. Scheuerman: Well, that was him.
Mr. Brown: That's my comment. I finished my comments.
Chairman Aikman: Oh, okay but you found it. Your turn, go ahead.
Mr. Scheuerman: Working on the same thing, which is locations, it's apparent that
EIT doesn't have a standard corporate color because at the Salem site, the logo is not blue, and at the Slaton Drive USA site in Danville it is actually looks almost disco-ballish. It doesn't appear that they had what would be considered a corporate color that they were branding all of their buildings with.
Again, I would circle back to if we got the dimensions right on the EIT and given that
the EIT didn't have quite frankly based on its own website, a corporate color for its brand that having a unified color would again, unified size, unified color makes it look like one sign and therefore is more compliant with what is our zoning requirements for these kind of projects.
Jason Alexander: Okay, thank you.
Chairman Aikman: JP.
Mr. Andrews: Even though they've merged or one bought the other, are they still two different operations? Does EIT provide a specific service within Zollner?
Jason Alexander: I don't have a definitive answer for that. Honestly, John couldn't
make it tonight. It is my impression that Zollner purchased all of EIT's capabilities
and they are really the parent but they gave them some concessions in branding so that the current owners wouldn't feel brushed aside.
Mr. Andrews: Because that would start to justify different colors for me if they're really trying to say, this is one company, but this component specializes in something
that would start to make a little more sense to me.
Jason Alexander: I think they do have their own brand recognition, Zollner [crosstalk]--
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
19 | P a g e J a n u a r y 1 7 , 2 0 2 4
Mr. Andrews: Again, I can relate to that. I've dealt with a lot of fighting the brand,
defending the brand for Costco, and all that. That's another thing if it was going to be more of a monotone thing, like a bronze or whatever. If everything in the general area was like that, I would understand asking these guys to blend in but if there's Chick-fil-A still bright red and these people are still able to adhere to their brands, I
think it's unfair to start to tell one company that they can't, they got to get away from
their brand.
I just get back to how can you unify the sign a little more and the two colors don't bother me but hyphen and Tom made a mention of even a rectangle, just it kind of borders it and maybe pulls it together. I would just ask that maybe you guys explore
some options for how to tie it together better without necessarily changing your
brand.
I do agree with the Z, if you can have that dimension change to match the EIT that in itself starts to pull it together. Whatever you could come up with to better pull it together without necessarily changing the brand I think it's going to be helpful for me
and perhaps all of us.
Chairman Aikman: I think we do have a consensus that you just need to go back and do some tweaking at the drawing board and try to unify it either through color changes, font size changes. I think we're in agreement given the contemporary nature of the building that you don't have to make radical changes to have a more
traditional font and that kind of thing.
In other words, anyone here can correct me if I'm wrong, but your logo is okay with us. It just needs to present in a way, either through some minor changes, a hyphen whatever to present clearly as one sign. If you can come back to us with that, I think we'll be in a good position. What we need is a motion to defer, I think to a work
session.
Vice Chair O'Neil: I'll move that the board of architectural review deferred TLHPBR2023-0020 for the installation of new signs at 309 Kelly's Ford Plaza Southeast to the February 5th, 2024 work session.
Mr. Andrews: Second it.
Chairman Aikman: The motion came from Tom O'Neill, seconded by JP Andrews.
All in favor?
Board Member: Aye. Aye.
Chairman Aikman: Pardon me.
Mr. Scheuerman: I did have a question. Did we do a public hearing?
Chairman Aikman: Yes, we did.
Ms. Pastor: Yes.
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
20 | P a g e J a n u a r y 1 7 , 2 0 2 4
Chairman Aikman: Kevin said no. You’re really trying to rattle me. Thank you. I
have never once forgotten a public hearing. All in favor?
Board Members: Aye.
Chairman Aikman: Opposed? The motion passes six to zero, with Judd Fuoto absent. Thank you very much, and we'll see you at the work session. The staff will let
you know when you need to provide additional materials. That brings us to continued
cases in the H-1 overlay all in historic district TLHPBR2023-0033, 212 South King Street, addition and alterations.
Ms. Murphy: Thank you, Madam Chair. I will admit that I was working on this PowerPoint after five o'clock tonight, and I'm pretty sure I forgot to put the revised
drawings in now that I'm standing here in front of you. I can make that change in a
minute. The proposed structures that we're talking about are 210 and 212 South King Street. 210 is believed to be a historic barn, circa 1899, converted to a residence sometime in the late 20th century. 212 South King is a circa 1895 vernacular. You see it here in the photo. It's a 5-bay stucco frame with everyone's
favorite cladding material, pebble dash stucco. The proposal associated with this
application is demolition of a shed in the rear yard, alterations, no longer demolition of 210 South King Street, alterations to 212 South King Street, and construction of an addition to the historic structure at 212 South King Street.
The revised site plan, which I did remember to put in this PowerPoint you see here,
is quite different from the last time where the existing house in the rear, which is
addressed as 210 was completely separate from the overall addition. Now you see that it's connected from front to back of the site. Still proposed as in in the first addition block and then a large warehouse style in the second block, which would be multi-family units.
The existing structure at 210, again it's believed to have been a barn. It's noted in
our architectural survey data as having been historic, but there's literally no other info on it other than that. Sanborn maps suggest it was built sometime before 1900. It has been significantly altered, but it is generally in good condition, and we have observed that onsite visits associated with this application.
The applicant is proposing several substantial changes to that building, including an
increase in height, although that has been brought down from the previous two proposals that you've seen, a change in siding, which would remove the existing siding material and install Hardie Plank. The addition now attaches to both 210 and 212, connecting the entire site. Staff recommends discussion of the treatment of this
proposal, especially the roof form, including the raised height, the dormer on the, I
think that was the north elevation, it's highlighted in your packets, and the proposed siding changes.
For other existing structures on site, there is a shed of unknown construction date that is proposed for removal from the property. The BAR has also viewed that during
the site visits associated with this application, that building was mostly recently
altered and approved by the BAR under TLHP2022-0014.
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
21 | P a g e J a n u a r y 1 7 , 2 0 2 4
Finally, the applicant continues to propose eliminating the pebble dash stucco on
212 South King Street. It was discussed at previous meetings the possibility of returning that structure to it’s believed original condition, which was lapped wood siding. The applicant with this proposal is showing that. Staff continues to support repairing in-kind the existing material, but the BAR has previously shown support for
returning the structure to its original cladding.
As far as staff is concerned, this existing pebble dash stucco has been documented as far back as the 1970s, which means it's historic in its own right at this time. Pebble dash stucco is a common early 20th-century application for historic structures, so it's not inappropriate as a cladding material for this building. Staff also
finds that it's difficult to justify that the structure is being restored in any way when
the applicant also proposes such a significant addition to the rear.
The statement of justification that was revised with this project indicates that additional alterations may happen to 212 South King Street. Replacements in-kind are noted of certain elements of the structure that would probably require a
certificate of appropriateness. In the Old and Historic District, even replacement in
kind requires review, at least by staff and occasionally by this Board. For example, the drawings appear to show that aluminum-clad windows would be used in the historic building. That's not usually something we would say is appropriate for a primary and contributing resource in the Old and Historic District. Windows can't be
replaced without approval from this Board, so staff is recommending that the
applicant provide a detailed description of all work being proposed for this structure, along with detailed existing condition drawings to clearly show the before and after proposal.
For the revised addition, this is substantially different from the application that you
saw most recently, which I believe was back in early December. The applicant has
worked to reduce some of the heights of the first and second warehouse blocks. You'll see that there's now a hipped roof shedding towards King Street behind the historic structure, rather than the previous iterations, which showed sort of a parapet wall popping up behind the historic home. It still extends above the historic house,
which the guidelines specifically say should not occur for new construction, so that
will require discussion.
The applicant has also changed the first block directly behind the historic house at 212 to be a brick cladding, to match the contemporary warehouse block rather than siding. When you first saw this proposal, it was a lapped siding for the first block and
then it changed to brick. The BAR was concerned that some of the blocks felt
disjointed from one another, and so that something maybe needed to be done to pull those applications together.
The massing still remains a concern, and as you'll note in the staff report, that there may be the need for additional means of articulation, including changes of material
or fenestration, which might be needed to help break up and reduce the visual
impact of this mass. See, I forgot the drawings and I'm very sorry. The first thing to note is that we have come to the critical action date or the last meeting before the
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
22 | P a g e J a n u a r y 1 7 , 2 0 2 4
critical action date for this item. Technically, the critical action expires on February
3rd. Our next work session is not until February 5th. The applicant did delay this item from the December meeting and the January work session to address outstanding issues. From that initial meeting and our site visit, they have met with the zoning and engineering staff and believe that the revised proposal addresses those zoning and
engineering issues, which were issued at first referral.
If the BAR and the applicant are willing, staff would recommend an extension of the critical action date beyond February 5th, but at a minimum, the item has to be extended to at least February 5th. Otherwise, it will require a vote tonight. I don't think that anyone finds that this application is in a state to be voted upon tonight.
My recommendation to you to just tailor the discussion to the major issues after we
address the issue of the critical action extension. First, the treatment of 210, does the BAR find that the increase in height is acceptable in this instance? Are you satisfied with the changes to the north elevation roofline and the changes to the dormers that were made? Previously, staff had expressed some concern about the
very large shed dormers that were proposed to come off of that building, and those
have been brought down and changed. Similarly, is the BAR satisfied with the idea of replacing the existing cladding with Hardie Plank rather than wood, and does the Board find that any changes are needed to the French doors? That was one of the items identified in the staff report as being incongruent with the existing style of the
structure.
Then moving on to the treatment of 212. I know you don't agree with me and that's okay, but staff continues to recommend preservation of the pebbledash. If the BAR supports the change from pebbledash to wood, you would simply need to create specific findings for why that was acceptable in this instance. For the window
treatment, the applicant should clarify whether or not they are proposed for
replacement, and if they are, are they proposed with aluminum clad? That would not be supported by staff. The most appropriate replacement window material in a historic building is wood windows. That's a position that we've held the line on numerous times.
As I noted previously, staff is recommending a detailed list of all the proposed repairs
and replacements, as well as existing condition drawings, just to clarify exactly what will be done to the structure at 212, and if necessary, the structure at 210. Then moving on to the addition, if the Board finds that that's more consistent with the guidelines than previous versions, we can certainly begin to discuss the refinement
of the details of the project materials, articulation, et cetera.
If not, then the Board should be prepared to provide the applicant with additional specific directions about how to further mitigate the proposal. The applicant does have a presentation. I'm going to turn to you, Kevin, and say, is it the ones that were in their packet or is it revised again for tonight?
Kevin Ash: The one I emailed you today?
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
23 | P a g e J a n u a r y 1 7 , 2 0 2 4
Ms. Murphy: Yes, I know, but is that the same one? I didn't have a chance to look at
it.
Mr. Wood: It has updated materials and everything.
Ms. Murphy: Okay. You tell me, while they're going through their presentation, I can add the ones that are in your packets to this PowerPoint, or you can just comment
off of their revised drawings. They've not been evaluated by staff because they were
just received this morning.
Chairman Aikman: The ones you would be adding are the ones that are already in packet packets that we received.
Ms. Murphy: In the packet, correct.
Chairman Aikman: Let me just turn to the Board. I'm okay with looking at what's in
the packet. Do you feel that it needs to be added to the-- Do you all feel it that--
Ms. Murphy: I can certainly put them in the PowerPoint so you can all look at them on the screen together, but they will be the drawings that are in your packet. The applicant also has a presentation that's going to show you different drawings from
what were in your packet, which have not been evaluated by staff.
Chairman Aikman: Okay.
Speaker 1: [unintelligible 01:05:47] It's similar [unintelligible 01:05:51] start. It's okay.
Chairman Aikman: Let's start, let's go stepwise here. Go ahead, add the ones that
were in the-- So we can look at those. That'll enable Kevin to tell us rather
specifically where the deviations are. Let's not jump into that discussion until she gets them added. Is this okay, Lauren? You don't have a problem without any?
Ms. Murphy Yes, this is my fault I was reading their PowerPoints and trying to take my notes.
Chairman Aikman: No, it's nobody's fault. I just want to make sure that it's doable to
add them on the fly. Okay, great.
Ms. Murphy Debi, can you close that and then I will very quickly.
Chairman Aikman: Okay. If you all would identify yourselves, please for the record.
Kevin Ash: Kevin Ash, the applicant.
Michael Wood: Michael Wood, the architect.
Chairman Aikman: Okay. Welcome back. You've had a chance to review the staff report?
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
24 | P a g e J a n u a r y 1 7 , 2 0 2 4
Michael Wood: Yes.
Chairman Aikman: You've brought some additional materials. This is obviously more in the nature, I would think of a working session than a hearing. Why don't we-- Well, we have an open public hearing on this just for the record, although there doesn't appear to be anyone here to participate from the public. In terms of how we
go about this, while we-- Well, first of all, you're going to make a presentation, so we
should begin with that. Can you begin it without having reference to the-- Lauren, about how long do you think it'll take to add those?
Ms. Murphy Two minutes and seven seconds?
Kevin Ash: Helen, if I may?
Chairman Aikman: Yes.
Kevin Ash: Let me update everybody on our meeting with planning and zoning-
Chairman Aikman: Okay, that would be great. That would be helpful.
Kevin Ash: -just to give a bigger overview.
Chairman Aikman: Good idea. Thank you.
Kevin Ash: Something Julie was commenting on in the past meetings. Met with
Mike Watkins and Bill Ackman's group from an engineering zoning standpoint. From a zoning standpoint, there were two comments that were really problematic earlier on. We misinterpreted the ability to add five condos to any existing-- To any development, you can add five condos. It's actually five multi-family units, so we
couldn't have individual doors into each of them.
Now, there's a single door into the main warehouse addition. That was a larger zoning component, which I think actually helps the architecture because now, we have eight individual garage doors. I think it really helped the lower base of it. Now, the main industrial building is a five-unit multi-family building versus it used to read
as more four townhouses. Now, it's a multi-family building.
Secondarily, you need a pedestrian access to get to the front doors. The way we achieved a pedestrian access is from 208 South King Street, there is a walkway on the first floor in between 212 historic house and then the first masonry addition of the inn, and then it runs along the front of the building. By making the main warehouse
portion, a multifamily building, it took out the stoops. Now, we have a 3-foot walkway
all along the building there.
From a zoning standpoint, those were the two items. From an engineering standpoint, they were really more concerned with the floodplain. We did some calculations, and the entire site will be raised up out of the floodplain, the backwater,
so it makes this development viable.
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
25 | P a g e J a n u a r y 1 7 , 2 0 2 4
Chairman Aikman: Can I ask you a question about the zoning piece? Did what
transpired at the zoning meeting have an impact on the decision to have the new addition attached to both structures or was that just a design?
Kevin Ash: Just design.
Chairman Aikman: Okay.
Michael Wood: Yes. It has to attach to 1 and it attaches to the front 212, but 212,
the grade outside of it needs to be raised up like 14 inches. We can do that with a 12% slope on the apron drive which gets 212 high enough to where it's outside of it. Because it's a commercial used as an inn, it can be right up next to it but not touching it, whereas in a residential application, that has to be further away.
Chairman Aikman: Okay. Now, we have the drawing. I would say proceed with your
presentation at will however you want to do it.
Kevin Ash: This is what's in your packet?
Ms. Murphy: That's in this packet.
Michael Wood: Yes, this isn’t the updated one.
Ms. Murphy: I would just refresh them and then you confirm. Your PowerPoint is
also in the folder so you can certainly flip back and forth.
Kevin Ash: Oh, okay.
Ms. Murphy: It's really hard to make commentary on things that we've just received today.
Kevin Ash: No, no, no. Understood.
Ms. Murphy: I think you could maybe talk them through some of the changes that you made between the first submission that they saw and what they saw in your packet, like the change to the roofline, some of the changes to the cladding, the changes to the back building. I think that will be helpful.
Kevin Ash: Yes. Okay. Fair point. Yes, we introduced a mansard roof on the first
addition to create that step. Again, if you're at street level, you'd never see the mansard roof, if you're a pedestrian on the street. It does create this rhythm as it moves back through the site. Here's a rear view. Obviously, 210, is at the absolute back end of the property at the far back corner. We did find and I think we have
pictures in our presentation that there is wood siding under the pebbledash so the
front is original wood German siding, so the image of that. However, we did remove siding on the back of 210. We could not find any original siding. I believe everything in 210 has been replaced.
Chairman Aikman: Okay.
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
26 | P a g e J a n u a r y 1 7 , 2 0 2 4
Kevin Ash: Underneath the vinyl siding, it's fiberboard-
Michael Wood: Insulation.
Kevin Ash: It's a fiberboard insulation underneath the vinyl siding. We couldn't find any board and batten or any other German siding or anything like that. The alterations as it's been manipulated over time included the removal of any original
siding.
Mr. Brown: Did you look at all the portions?
Kevin Ash: We didn't go through every portion. We did sampling that wasn't effective. We did on the backside and on the 208 side.
Mr. Brown: Backside?
Kevin Ash: We did introduce Hardie siding because we couldn't find any original
siding. Hardie siding was approved at 209 Church Street, another development that I did. Without any reference material on the building and we've used that in the past at other projects here in Town. I'm forgetting something on the original building. From this image, you can see the pedestrian walkway.
The owners of 208 South King Street would grant an easement because the
northern edge of the original 212 building is literally on the property line of 208 so this creates a pedestrian path from the sidewalk to the lead walk of 208, under the Porte Cochere of 208 into this property. Again, 212 and the first edition would be the seven-bedroom inn and next segment would be the multifamily component of the
development that is by right.
As you get into the larger warehouse-- and we did combine the two additions with all masonry. The second larger block of masonry, you can see that we've added a rhythm of eight single garage doors at the lower level and a single point of entry which would take you to a singular stair and an elevator. To the far right you can see
the existing, 210 South King Street, where we did raise the right side from a shed
roof to a gable roof but left the left side consistent with the way it currently is.
The front gable and left side is architecturally the way it currently is. The right side introduces a new dormer, obviously at the very back rear of the property furthest away from King Street. I think that this plan indicated aluminum clad windows. It
wasn't for the historic 212 house; it was meant purely for the new additions. I think
we clarified that in our new presentation 212 is anticipated that would simulate true divided light windows as a replacement. We've done a preliminary survey. We can't find any original windows in 212, so that's why we're making the recommendation of all new wood windows. Again, different perspective looking at 210.
Mr. Brown: Did you say you couldn't find any original windows in 212? Even the
front?
Kevin Ash: Nothing was operable. Nothing that I could see that had wavy glass.
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
27 | P a g e J a n u a r y 1 7 , 2 0 2 4
Mr. Brown: Not the wavy glass, but could still be wooden windows. Doesn't mean
they're not wood.
Michael Wood: Well, there definitely wood windows.
Kevin Ash: They're wood windows, but they're not original to the house.
Mr. Brown: Okay.
Kevin Ash: In the past, on 208, if it was original glass, we preserved those but if it
was a replacement wood window later on that's not thermally broken, we would replace it with a thermally broken, two-divided light wood window.
Ms. Murphy: That's why I'm asking for the detailed list of the changes because that's normally something that we would've taken a look at when we were out on the site
visit. It wasn't clear that those were going to be replaced as a part of this application.
It even sounds like now it's more eminent, it's definitely happening as a proposed replacement as opposed to if we need to because that's how the statement of justification's worded right now. I'm asking is it a definite like, yes, we're asking to replace these windows or is it a maybe and we need to look at the windows a little
more and we'll submit a separate application later?
Kevin Ash: We'll submit a separate application later if we need to replace it.
Ms. Murphy: Okay. Got it. Thank you.
Michael Wood: I submitted a side-by-side diagram for the 210. I just wanted to show that.
Ms. Murphy: Yes, so can you pull up their PowerPoint Debi? It's a pdf DF in the file.
Michael Wood: The big thing on our new presentation that I did was I took Lauren's feedback and basically, laid out a material list with tags and then tagged the elevations with those said materials so it was clear on what we were proposing. Then we added some detailing to the brick buildings, adding some different banding
and cornice details and some other things to give the brick a little bit more life than
what it had previously.
Kevin Ash: One of the comments was on the garage doors might be better received as a glass industrial door on the first floor. This image shows a glass garage door. Images of different masonry applications and warehouse-style buildings in the Town.
Again, here identifying differently wood windows versus aluminum clad.
Michael Wood: Yes. If you see there's letters for each material and then when we get to the elevations, it'll tie back to that material based on what we're doing. Now it's a little bit clearer laid out for staff to be able to track what we're changing.
Ms. Murphy: Okay. That's very helpful. Thank you.
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
28 | P a g e J a n u a r y 1 7 , 2 0 2 4
Michael Wood: Yep. These are probably good elevations, showing some of the
different detailing. This one and probably the next one show the banding, a soldier course banding along the first level and then also a cornice brick detail on the top that'll have some corbeling with the brick. Graphically, it shows as a different type of brick. It's the computer software doing that. I envision it would be the same brick all
consistent, it's just the computer software was changing that. If you get to the
comparison, it's the floor plan. This back house, it's quirky. It's been added onto. I'm sure there's been parts removed and then new parts added. Since it now has life as a residence, we were going to try to bring it into current times with still life as a residence but still keeping some of the quirky lines.
If you see on the left-hand side, I tried to keep that side very consistent with the
current design. All we did was add height to the second floor so that way it's operable. Right now that is the bedroom in the house, and it has 5-foot side walls, and it's a 6'2" ceiling in there. Legally not even a bedroom, but that's where it's currently the owner sleeps. What we're looking to do is actually bring this house,
keeping a lot of the same vernacular of the existing house and how it's been
modified over the years, but really bringing it into a usable residence with this proposition.
Kevin Ash: We heard the Board speak about this structure in the past, and part of the Town is these additive structures that do have a quirky nature, so we were trying
to work with that quirky nature and make it more livable. This is just block floor plans
to show zoning, how we were achieving meeting the by-right uses.
Chairman Aikman: Quick question, the east facade of the addition which has no windows, the staff has commented on that, the lack of fenestration, and I was just curious what the--
Kevin Ash: The east of the masonry?
Chairman Aikman: Of the masonry, yes.
Michael Wood: This one.
Kevin Ash: That side. Building code, can we--
Michael Wood: Originally it was going to be a fire wall which was going to be a
townhouse, which now it's not.
Kevin Ash: It's a multifamily. We can be 2 and 10 from this, so we probably could add fenestration at the top floor level.
Michael Wood: But definitely on the fourth level. The third level probably not.
Mr. Andrews: What do you think of something on the north facade which looks like
brick infills or something like that?
Chairman Aikman: Yes, even just infill, something to give it some depth.
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
29 | P a g e J a n u a r y 1 7 , 2 0 2 4
Kevin Ash: It's a very valid point because we did change our building code and
methodology of construction so you can add fenestration from a fire code on the fourth floor, and then we may even be able to do the inset to give it some more character on that side.
Ms. Murphy: My opinion is that just taking care of that large blank chunk above the
height of the 210 would probably be sufficient. I don't think you need to overburden
it.
Kevin Ash: I think we could definitely add two windows.
Ms. Murphy: Tom Dunlap on Church Street will probably appreciate something more than a blank wall.
Kevin Ash: Actually, his office does look right at this.
Chairman Aikman: I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you. I cut you.
Kevin Ash: More consistent with this, Lauren, where there's two windows, this is a door and a window--
Ms. Murphy: That's all staff will be looking for, whether or not the BAR feels like
additional beyond that would be needed, they can certainly give direction on, but
staff's feeling was that just that large blank area above the height of 210 is where the fenestration could be focused.
Kevin Ash: Yes, fair point.
Michael Wood: If you could go back to the 3D views from the street, I just want to
show this proposition of the mansard just kind of elevated a little bit because the
elevation sometime always make it-- This is a good angle, so you can see the mansard. From this angle, this is looking out across if you're at a couple of blocks down from KM Digital's building and looking back across the street. This is the view you're going to see, and really this is where you'll only see the addition behind the
house.
Kevin Ash: Now, it says north in your house, Rick.
Rick: That's pretty much me.
Michael Wood: Pretty much right off Rick's front window would be about this view, but this is really where you only see that three-story addition that's going to be
behind this thing because really it's going to be tucked back there, especially around
the sidewalk of the property. You're not going to see this if you're standing in front of it and then if you're across the street, if you're at let's say KM Digital, if you go back one view, this is basically what you're going to see.
Chairman Aikman: It's almost as if you're apologizing for the mansard roof.
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
30 | P a g e J a n u a r y 1 7 , 2 0 2 4
Michael Wood: No, I'm just saying the reason why we lifted the mansard--
Chairman Aikman: I just want to say, in the future, after we're all gone, people will come to this Town and they'll look and they'll say, "Oh, Mansard roof, Kevin Ash." [laughter]
Kevin Ash: Hey, I'm proud of all my Mansards.
Chairman Aikman: Anyway, okay.
Ms. Murphy: I do think that the Mansard roof change to that first block is much more successful. Having it detailed out now with the cornice and everything, it's even more successful than it is in the version in your packet.
Chairman Aikman: Are you all finished with your presentation?
Kevin Ash: Yes.
Chairman Aikman: Thank you.
Vice Chair O'Neil: We're still-- this has been in a work session, so we don't have to, we can just.
Chairman Aikman: Right, exactly.
Ms. Murphy: That's why we put it at the end. I think you were maybe expecting to go
first.
Kevin Ash: No.
Chairman Aikman: I think, could we bring up this, you had a slide that was--
Ms. Murphy: What I thought they should do.
Chairman Aikman: Yes, I think it will be helpful to guide the conversation.
Ms. Murphy: Can you flip back to my PowerPoint, sorry?
Chairman Aikman: What I'd like to lead off with here if it makes sense to other members of the Board, and if it doesn't, we can do something else. Rather than going piece by piece, I'd like to get folks' general impression of the concept at this
point. The concept has been through some very major changes, and I think it would
be helpful to just get a read on that, and then once we have that, we can go structure by structure, essentially. No one in particular needs to start, but I'm going to call on Julie because Julie has had [crosstalk] things to say about it.
Ms. Pastor: I do have an overarching question. The public hearing is still open?
Chairman Aikman: Correct, yes.
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
31 | P a g e J a n u a r y 1 7 , 2 0 2 4
Ms. Pastor: The sign has not been up since before Christmas. Is there a particular
reason why that is the case?
Kevin Ash: I knew 208 blew down. I thought it was up recently.
Ms. Pastor: 208 is up. [chuckles] 208 sign was up, but the one in front of Black Walnut has not been up since before Christmas.
Mr. Brown: Yes, it looked bent over, actually.
Ms. Pastor: No, it was gone.
Kevin Ash: It was on the side.
Ms. Pastor: On the side of what?
Kevin Ash: We put it up a couple of times, so I don't know if it's gone now, but it was
up and down.
Ms. Pastor: It has been gone for a while but anyway, that's just the general.
Chairman Aikman: No, and that's helpful. Let's check it out and see.
Ms. Murphy: We can certainly make another one, and you can actually just put it in the window if you want. You don't have to put it in the grass.
Kevin Ash: I'll put it in there.
Chairman Aikman: Yes. I think it should be up for sure. We also, though--
Ms. Murphy: It's supposed to remain up, but we know they [crosstalk]
Chairman Aikman: There are folks from the public who have been here who are very aware that we are continuing to have a public hearing, but the sign should be up
for sure. Let's just check that. Thank you, Julie.
Ms. Pastor: Thanks for bringing up the zoning and the engineering. I'm glad you did get a chance to meet, and the comments are good that they provided you that guidance. I think as I've said before, really, the issue of the industrial style building has not really been my concern, but I think the application is still not ready for prime
time based on the comments that are provided here. Largely, the height, still the
height of the addition, and the additional height of the existing structure. I get the 210, 212 mixed up.
Kevin Ash: 210 is in the rear of 212.
Ms. Pastor: The 210, and then the middle addition with the-- that's the bed and
breakfast, or whatever. It's, to be honest, the picture that you showed that you think
is the best picture, the one that's from Rick's house, it doesn't fit-- I mean, it doesn't
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
32 | P a g e J a n u a r y 1 7 , 2 0 2 4
flow for me from your project, the 208 project, down to the further. The style, even of
the KM property on the other side of it.
I know that's one of Leesburg's fortes, is that we have these wonderful different styles all mixed together, and I love that about it, but it's just so much new stuff that doesn't relate to each other either. I think, as you know, I've been harping on the
whole opportunity thing for your project and this project to be more integrated would
have been a super idea, because it really would have maybe helped you out with some of your parking issues, maybe or some of the other things that might help.
It's almost like an opportunity lost to try to fit all of these pieces together, would be looking at it in one big piece would've been an interesting perspective to do, but I
know that's not what we're about. The way it's been going and I admit I was not here
for the last meeting, I know it got-- It didn't get on the agenda for the last meeting but--
Kevin Ash: Michael had a baby.
Ms. Pastor: We just keep getting things added on and that's-- I think why we're
waiting for the-- We'll have to extend the critical action date just so we get all the
pieces together and we finally look at a package that's complete and ready to go. That's where I'm at.
Chairman Aikman: Okay. Anyone else? [crosstalk] We don't have to go in a certain order. [chuckles] No, that's fine. We don't have to go in a certain order just raise your
hand or-
Mr. Brown: I can go.
Chairman Aikman: -jump in.
Mr. Brown: What word did you use Helen, that you're looking for at this stage? Because this is not the really get into all your thoughts at this stage, is it?
Chairman Aikman: No, this is just overall-- exactly. It doesn't have to be exhaustive.
Mr. Brown: The project can work. Everything to me makes sense. I still think there's a little bit of work on the front building, which is really a lot of the focus to keep as much as historic character as possible. I completely agree with the addition, that second building changing the roof style to the [chuckles] Kevin Ash 2000 vernacular
Leesburg. It adds a little-- Actually, it's very appealing to the eye because it takes
away that height.
The thing that I'm still personally and there's a lot of notes on this, is the 210 building, what's being done to it right now still seems to be not really maintaining its historic integrity. I don't agree with the demolishing of the shed. I'd like to see that utilized in
the build because I think it's probably what was in the old Sanborn maps. Based on
that it was old-growth wood on it and you've got a metal roof that's factually hand
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
33 | P a g e J a n u a r y 1 7 , 2 0 2 4
bent. I would like to see that saved in some way, especially with that old wood that's
on it. That's my thoughts right now.
Chairman Aikman: Okay. Anybody else?
Vice Chair O'Neil: I'll just jump in on overall massing at this point. I do think it's an improvement over last time. The mansard roof I think does work well in this case. I
would agree with the other comments that the 210 building it still, yes, you can do
additive work to a building like that and continue to have it evolve but it's lost all its character still.
I'm getting a little too much in the details there. The main central block, I think as this design has developed. I had mentioned early on that I just wasn't sure if the
warehouse idea, I felt like as you continue to develop it, and you would have to join
the buildings in order to make the project work once you talk to the staff more and stuff-- I just questioned the lack of detail on it still. I think it would read a lot better if it had more of a tripartite design.
Right now the garage doors have no relationship to the windows up above but
maybe if there was a stronger separation between the two and let that-- Maybe that's
rusticated facade on or something, make it look more different. I'm getting too much into the details but overall massing, I think has gotten to the point where-- I reacted very strongly last time that the addition still overwhelmed 212 and I don't think it does anymore. In that overall idea, I think it's been going in the right direction. There's just
a long ways to go with a lot of the other details. [chuckles]
Chairman Aikman: Anybody else? Good.
Mr. Scheuerman: The mansard, I also like the mansard. I can't help but note that it carries on from the adjoining building has a little bit of mansard on it. It ties the community get together. The comment about the large empty wall facing east on that
fourth floor, that's a legitimate concern. Something either done with brick detailing or
windows would be probably very helpful. One of the things that came to mind for me to Tom's point about detailing, is this interior drained roof or are you going to gutters and downspouts?
Kevin Ash: Interior drain.
Mr. Scheuerman: Interior drain. Okay. You're going to have the overflow scuppers
required by code?
Kevin Ash: Yes.
Mr. Scheuerman: Are they going to be really pretty and add nice detailing [unintelligible 01:35:00]?
Kevin Ash: Copper.
Michael Wood: Coming right through that new corbelling detail up there.
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
34 | P a g e J a n u a r y 1 7 , 2 0 2 4
Kevin Ash: [unintelligible 01:35:06]
Michael Wood: Well, depends with that.
Mr. Scheuerman: I was just wondering because your south wall is somewhat of a blank slate except for you popped windows in, and it's brick and window. At least that's how it appears in the details. Overall, I think it's progressed along. I do not
have a concern with removal of the shed, and I voiced that last time. I looked inside
it, I don't know that we're preserving anything of great character there. The back-- the 210, the back continues to be a struggle. I'm looking forward to anything you might be able to do there.
Chairman Aikman: JP?
Mr. Andrews: I had two things and one we've already talked about, and that was the
plainness of that east elevation of the brick, and I don't think it needs to be windows, but just again, those infills where it looks like old window spaces have been filled in with bricks, or something pretty minor like that just gives it, for me, enough character. The other thing, I've mentioned this the last time, landscaping. I know that there's
really not much you can do here, but a couple of things I just wanted to ask about.
When I look at your overall site plan here where it says storm easement, you show two parking spaces at the complete rear of this in front of the 210. I was wondering if those spaces could come forward and you would allow enough room to put some landscaping there so that when you're at least looking down the corridor, it ends with
some sort of greenery or whatever instead of just-- I don't know what's proposed, just
a fence or whatever.
Then a question about how much space is between the garage bays. Is there enough room that there could be just some little landscape thing between each of the garage bays that when you turn in there could be a little shrub there, or
something? It just feels, and I'm not a big landscape guy, but it just feels so barren in
there.
Kevin Ash: We're dealing with a 50-foot wide, and I can't put landscaping in front of those because I have to preserve the 3-foot walkway from a zoning standpoint. Bill Aikman said "Kevin, can you come to us with something easy?" With the urban infill
to try to meet so many different constraints from zoning, from engineering, to building
code here with BAR, these are layers of-- To try to create something that works and touches on all those. I hear you.
Ms. Pastor: Reduce the footprint.
Mr. Scheuerman: I did have a staff question. This is multifamily-ish, so an ADA
accessibility to the right of way is going to be a requirement, I assume?
Ms. Murphy: That's not a Lauren Murphy staff question, but I would assume. Yes. There is usually ADA requirement for new construction.
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
35 | P a g e J a n u a r y 1 7 , 2 0 2 4
Mr. Scheuerman: To the right of way?
Kevin Ash: Only in an elevated building. We have to have a 3-foot wide pedestrian walkway, and the ADA applies here only to the multifamily portion.
Ms. Pastor: This is not an elevated building?
Kevin Ash: The multi-family portion is.
Ms. Pastor: It is?
Kevin Ash: Yes.
Ms. Pastor: The answer is yes.
Kevin Ash: The other buildings are not elevated.
Mr. Scheuerman: Right, so the main warehouse section would have to have an
accessible way to the right of way?
Kevin Ash: That's the meandering path from the sidewalk down the lead walk at 208, through the through the archway, and along the front.
Mr. Scheuerman: I may be mistaken, but with America with disability, 60% of all the exit doors have to be accessible. If you have two doors, that means they both do.
Kevin Ash: Only in an accessible building.
Mr. Scheuerman: The warehouse section, is that an accessible, but need to be an accessible building?
Kevin Ash: Yes.
Mr. Scheuerman: So both doorways coming out of there have to be accessible to
the right of way?
Kevin Ash: Both doorways? I think there's only one door.
Michael Wood: What other doorway are you-- We have a one-egress building here. There's two one-egress buildings.
Ms. Murphy: There's only one doorway.
Mr. Scheuerman: There's only one doorway?
Kevin Ash: Yes.
Ms. Murphy: Yes. Can you use the clicker?
Mr. Scheuerman: The doorway on the garage side is not a doorway?
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
36 | P a g e J a n u a r y 1 7 , 2 0 2 4
Kevin Ash: This door right here, the glass door on the first floor is--
Michael Wood: One is coming from a separated stairwell that's on the inside that can't open onto an elevator lobby because it's a fire rated stair that is going all four stories. Then to the right is the lobby door, but all those are accessible, if that makes sense.
Ms. Murphy: That flat store in the center of the warehouse block is directly on the
grade. That is accessible.
Mr. Scheuerman: To the right of way.
Ms. Murphy: Yes.
Mr. Scheuerman: All right.
Ms. Murphy: That's why they now have that little archway between the yellow
building and the first block of the brick building to provide the flat sidewalk at the right slope.
Chairman Aikman: What I was driving at with going to this part of the conversation first was to see if there's anything in the basic construction of the mass. Not details,
not every little thing, but that would disqualify this. Does anybody find the basic
concept at this point to be just unworkable, unprovable subject to details? What I'm hearing is, and maybe I'm wrong, but what I'm hearing is people are getting more comfortable with the concept. The staff's more comfortable with it. It sounds like the Board members are more comfortable with it. I, myself--
Vice Chair O’Neil: In terms of massing, yes.
Chairman Aikman: In terms of massing. Yes, exactly, in terms of massing. I think that we'll go step by step after this. It does sound like the back end of the train here is kind of the caboose is going to be still an issue a little bit maybe, but basically, the concept in terms of masses coming together, right? Fair enough.
Kevin Ash: Is it something that in past projects I've had BAR at this stage approve
the mass subject to approval of all the other details?
Chairman Aikman: I think we can't bifurcate approvals, right? Legal has put the kibosh on that.
Ms. Murphy: The town attorney's office has said they're not empowered to do that.
Kevin Ash: Can't do that anymore.
Vice Chair O’Neil: I wouldn't be comfortable approving it anyway.
Ms. Pastor: I wouldn't be comfortable with that.
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
37 | P a g e J a n u a r y 1 7 , 2 0 2 4
Chairman Aikman: Right. Yes, no, I would agree with that, because honestly, I think
I'm better with it, but--
Ms. Pastor: So many details.
Chairman Aikman: It really is like a train. You know what I mean? It's just interesting. You've got this long, narrow building and all these different parts and it
doesn't have the same cohesion that the other project has, but I don't think we need
to hold it necessarily to that standard. Way better. Michael's done very good work and I think, I assume it was Michael who did this.
Michael Wood: Very loosely. I have a four-week-old, so he was just born, so.
Chairman Aikman: [laughs] Anyway, let's go back to the slide with the individual
discussion items and march through them if we can do that. 210. I guess that's the
biggest sticking point at this point.
Kevin Ash: We've tried two different concepts that-
Chairman Aikman: Yes, you have.
Kevin Ash: -we were not successful. I think, unanimously, last time we heard
keeping the structure and the shape and the intent there. Like Michael said, it's not
habitable in some of the spaces. I'm getting lost in direction.
Chairman Aikman: I hear you and I--
Vice Chair O’Neil: I can comment on that. I would say-
Chairman Aikman: Yes. Go ahead, please.
Vice Chair O’Neil: -I understand what you're trying to do. I would just put it this way
that if that was all you were in here for, just that in addition on that structure, I still don't think we would approve it because the dormer facing north on the rear part, it's just awkward still. I guess I don't really get why that additional square footage is so critical to the success of the project.
Kevin Ash: It's not square footage, it's just getting the height to make it habitable.
Vice Chair O’Neil: That attic, that rear part, it has a shallow slope shed roof. That's not space right now. That's new square footage. The gable roof facing east with the dormer-
Michael Wood: Like an attic.
Vice Chair O’Neil: -going off to north.
Michael Wood: You're talking about an attic, right? Is what you're talking about?
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
38 | P a g e J a n u a r y 1 7 , 2 0 2 4
Vice Chair O’Neil: Yes. The back of the house. The gable that faces east and then
the north shed dormer. That elevation. Right, yes, that one-
Michael Wood: I was just seeing if we have the rear.
Chairman Aikman: Tom, let me put this question to you. What change would you envision from the current iteration of this that would make it approvable?
Vice Chair O’Neil: It's hard to say at this point. I would go I think it's one of the very
last sides you have where you just show the existing structure compared to the new one, the massing. To me, it would be helpful--
Kevin Ash: Little bits in there.
Ms. Murphy: That's in their PowerPoint.
Kevin Ash: Yes.
Vice Chair O'Neil: There's a big difference. We have no idea, we can't tell what windows have changed, but a lot of details are just hard to understand at this point.
Mr. Brown: It would help if it has a comparison to the real existing condition, not a CAD drawing.
Vice Chair O'Neil: Yes.
Kevin Ash: Keep them, it's at the end. Right there.
Mr. Scheuerman: There you go.
Vice Chair O'Neil: I'm going back to my comment that I started with. If we just take this slide, and this was your entire project, I don't think the Board would approve
mostly that last gable roof addition.
Kevin Ash: Let me ask you this. If we leave that back building existing.
Chairman Aikman: You mean existing without it attaching to the--
Kevin Ash: No, attaching.
Chairman Aikman: Attaching but as is?
Kevin Ash: As is, yes.
Vice Chair O'Neil: I don't really have an issue with it attaching because it's--
Chairman Aikman: Well, I'm just clarifying. I wasn't--
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
39 | P a g e J a n u a r y 1 7 , 2 0 2 4
Kevin Ash: Yes, I know. In order to move the ball forward and if we look at a later
date wanted to-- I just don't want this, the caboose running the whole show here because there's bigger components that I think are more successful and have had--
Vice Chair O'Neil: I guess the point I'm trying to get to is if there was more careful study of how you can add onto this building and still retain the character of the
building and give it the sense of telling what might've been there at one time, what's
been added and stuff. To me--
Kevin Ash: I mean, but, Tom, I mean this was a barn which has been completely converted over and then addition. It's like, I don't know anybody knows exactly what was there.
Vice Chair O'Neil: That's why I wasn't a fan of the board and batten siding. I'm
trying to make it look like a barn again because it's no longer a barn.
Kevin Ash: I don't think it is.
Vice Chair O'Neil: I'm just saying that this is a top heavy addition that in and of itself to me, I'd like to hear what the rest of the Board has to say. To me, it's awkward
looking. I'd say yes, if you did go back to something closer to the form on the right, I
would probably be happier with it because I would be able to tell that it was an old house that had been added onto. I'd like to hear everyone else's opinion on that too.
Chairman Aikman: Anyone else want to address that?
Mr. Brown: I do.
Chairman Aikman: Yes.
Mr. Brown: I'd completely agree-
Ms. Pastor: I do too.
Mr. Brown: -on that. Again, when you're looking at this, you're looking at a CAD drawing that's actually, it's not trying to trick us, but it's not giving us any of the
information of what's already there existing. It's like your height of the roof changes,
then the height changes and basically, you're eliminating all the form, but if you did just keep it as it was to just pay respect to that building and have it attached, then you'd be respectful to the property. I also wouldn't be so-- like if you had a little bit of an addition, like adding something to the roof line to get more space on the side that
faces back this way away from King Street, buildings get added to, and that would
maybe be more acceptable. This, you've turned it into a modern building, what you've done.
Vice Chair O'Neil: Actually, the roof height issue on the front part, the five-foot walls and all that, I don't really have an issue with raising that. I would want to do that too.
Kevin Ash: Do you think the left side works?
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
40 | P a g e J a n u a r y 1 7 , 2 0 2 4
Vice Chair O'Neil: Yes.
Kevin Ash: The left side works having too big of a steep gable and in a larger reverse gable to the church street side, which is the rear is where you feel it starts to fail.
Vice Chair O'Neil: Yes.
Chairman Aikman: I would concur with that. I don't have a problem with the west
side and I don't really have a problem with the south side very much.
Ms. Murphy: It's the cross gable that's giving you heartburn.
Chairman Aikman: Yes. Exactly. The cross gable and also the shed, the shed dormer-
Ms. Murphy: The extra dormer on it.
Chairman Aikman: -attached. Yes.
Vice Chair O'Neil: It's hard to tell from your drawing. Is that the same gable roof that's facing north and south? Does it have the same overhang? Are you replacing all that? Does it need to be replaced? More information like that would be helpful for
us so we could understand the true extent of the renovation.
Ms. Murphy: The eaves here are definitely deeper than the eaves that are on that building.
Michael Wood: Correct.
Ms. Murphy: Correct.
Michael Wood: The building is all vinyl siding and vinyl corner board and there's no
detailing on it now and that's the issue. I'm working from-- To me, I understand that it's an old building, but it's been modified so many times that it has all modern materials.
Kevin Ash: Part of the problem is short of taking off all the vinyl siding and coil stock
that wraps all the cornice material. We really don't know what's under there. We can
pull pieces and stuff like that, but it is--it's all vinyl siding.
Ms. Pastor: I'm looking at the siding. We're looking at the form.
Kevin Ash: Julie, they just talked about soffit overhangs and stuff like that on the details.
Ms. Murphy: That to me, that does play into the roof form. That I think is why that
roof on the new piece, the new design looks different, I mean the cross gable and the shed gable off the back of the cross gable. [chuckles] Also, there's a lot of gables going on, but I think increasing those eaves makes it look more contemporary. I think
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
41 | P a g e J a n u a r y 1 7 , 2 0 2 4
if there were anything you could do to scale that back, at least from a staff
perspective, and then maybe retain that slope of that shed piece that you have on the far east side right now, but still pick up your height. That was a question I had for you. Is the height issue in all of it, or just in that center gate or just in the shed roof portion on the east?
Michael Wood: The shed roof is only about a 5-foot ceiling height on the far right
edge-
Ms. Murphy: You can tell that that's not-
Michael Wood: -when you have the--
Ms. Murphy: -that doesn't make code. You can tell [crosstalk]
Michael Wood: It's just filled with stuff right now. The room on the left is--
Ms. Murphy: Even in the central gable portion, you don't have the clearance you need.
Michael Wood: Yes, it's not easy to tell when you're up there because it's not an open ceiling to above, so you're getting hit with ceiling joist right away. It's weird.
[chuckles] I don’t know how to describe it.
Kevin Ash: Again, I don't want to keep deliberating on this. If I hear everybody's position, like to incorporate the existing-- I think we got to take photos of all four sides, take actual measurements, and the east side, it sounds like a gable on the east side to get to a reasonable ceiling height. Not changing the height of the
building, of the main gable, and we're just talking about the east side to make that
viable square footage is going to be a path of least resistance. I'm just trying to figure out. It sounds like all the other iterations we thought this kept in keeping with a quirky building that was added on, but it sounds like it's-- I don't want to keep deliberating on the entire project on this piece here, over to your point, Tom, 400 square feet. If
we think the center mass is working, we need more details that's easier to
accomplish. I just think if ultimately we are going to leave this the way it is and put some more Band-Aids on it to get actual usable second-floor space, then that's what we're going to be left with.
Vice Chair O’Neil: I think I'll just go back and comment on what you said. I'd say
yes, you should go out and measure and document it very carefully because that's
the whole point of what we're here for. We're trying to let this still read as an old building.
Kevin Ash: True, but I guess--
Vice Chair O’Neil: I get the feeling that you have to deal with this structure on the
back and the one on the front so you can get your big building in the middle. My
point is, they're just as important to us as that center block and the care and attention needs to be taken on documenting that and figuring out--
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
42 | P a g e J a n u a r y 1 7 , 2 0 2 4
Kevin Ash: True, but I would just ask that to look at where this is in the context of
the Town and visibility of it, which is virtually from the public right of way. You can't see--
Vice Chair O’Neil: That's, to me, each structure matters. I'm not saying you have to live with the 5-foot ceiling under the shed roof either. I'm just saying I don't think the
current design is a successful way of gaining that headroom. That shed dormer that
faces north on top of that roof, to me, there's absolutely no reason to have that because you don't need 12 feet of headroom or 15 feet of headroom or whatever the top of that dormer wall is. That's my point is that you just need to--
Kevin Ash: Architecturally, we need more details and dimensions to--
Ms. Pastor: Yeah 86 that dormer. [chuckles]
Vice Chair O’Neil: Yes. Even take the dormer away, maybe the gable roof works well enough.
Kevin Ash: I hear Julie saying something about no dormer, but then I hear others saying--
Ms. Pastor: I'm just boiling it down to pretty much what Tom is saying is that on the
elevation, basically, it's this piece here needs to go.
Vice Chair O’Neil: It's what the staff pointed out too early in their review on the [crosstalk]
Kevin Ash: I guess I'm hearing confli-- You're saying the shed roof on the right, you
don't have a problem raising that to the gable that's in the middle?
Vice Chair O’Neil: If it's done right. Again, there are a lot of examples around Leesburg. I don't think it necessarily needs to match the pitch of the main gable going there. It could be a shallower gable roof or you could continue-- I don't want to design it for you like that.
Kevin Ash: No, no, but I mean opinions matter. I'm trying to gather different opinions
to make an informed decision. Julie, that's not what you see then?
Ms. Pastor: No, that is what I said. I'm just saying, the way it is, there is-- and I'm not an architect, but it's too big. It's a piece that doesn't respect what it looks like on the right. It's an extra piece that got added above that one. It's this piece here.
Kevin Ash: The rear dormer.
Mr. Brown: Do you have a picture that we can put up of the existing structure, because again, we're making comments on a CAD drawing. I'm not sure if these windows are even the right style of windows. This really is not the way that we should do this. There should be an actual picture of the existing structure.
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
43 | P a g e J a n u a r y 1 7 , 2 0 2 4
Kevin Ash: It's kind of the feedback we need just to help us.
Michael Wood: There was feedback I got from staff was detailed existing condition, drawings and pictures of 210, because originally it was going to go away, so I think that level of detail was not accounted for.
Chairman Aikman: Right. I also think you face a rather unique challenge here
where you have a historic building that has a certain character, but almost everything
in it has been replaced. It's as though what you're trying to do is to resurrect the ghost of the building. You know what I mean?
Kevin Ash: Well, it could've been if it was built that way.
Chairman Aikman: Right. Exactly. I'm not disagreeing with you at all, but when you
look at it, it presents, oh, you think, oh, it's this quaint old building, but when you
actually start digging into it, there is very little of that left. There's just this ghost of character, but anyway.
Mr. Brown: Is that really the case? I mean--
Ms. Murphy: That is certainly something the BAR can use in your findings when you
do get towards an approval for this. We have done this before. If the BAR feels that
the shell of the historic building isn't sufficient for that building to be considered a contributing structure anymore, you could certainly note that.
Chairman Aikman: Right.
Ms. Murphy: That's similar to what we did over at 202 Harrison for example. It used
to be a warehouse, then it was converted to an office, then it was converted to a
restaurant. It's had so many changes in its life from Point A to Point B that, yes, that building has been on that property since 1902, but has it? Because it looks so different now from what it would’ve looked liked then.
Chairman Aikman: Well, we also looked at something like that with that house on
Loudoun Street that we looked at most recently, where all of the siding had been
replaced. You know what I mean? That addition where there's enough adulteration of the original structure. Anyway, I think your point is well-taken that we may need to step beyond this particular issue. You may decide to remove it from your application. You may decide to deal with it separately. I think that's up to you if you want to do
that in order to move forward with this. On the other hand, Michael may go back to
the drawing board one more time and come forward with something that makes Tom happy. We'll see [crosstalk].
Kevin Ash: I think that that's probably a better path is like, let's set this off to the side, because really, my next step now that we have a by-right approvable zoning
engineering building is really to get into the civil engineering and I'm apprehensive
doing that until something get approved here. There's no engineering associated with this building.
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
44 | P a g e J a n u a r y 1 7 , 2 0 2 4
Chairman Aikman: Fair enough.
Kevin Ash: It doesn't have any site plan issues it's out of the flood plain. Everything else going west of that is really-- I do think that let's give it time because this isn't going to get built tomorrow, and this is a much smaller construction project of the rest and maybe we can address each and everything in a separate--
Chairman Aikman: I think that makes sense. If we can go back to our list.
Mr. Andrews: Actually, just one more thing I want to ask about this. Any reason we're changing the color? I noticed you preserved on 212, the color, the red roof, the yellow building and all that and--
Kevin Ash: Preserve the vinyl yellow color?
Mr. Andrews: Or just [unintelligible 01:59:32]. I feel that's part of this is you've
gone to a modern color. I think that's separating it for me too. If the whole idea is that we're preserving two structures that exist on the site today and you're filling in with something, why not keep the two structures the same color like they are today and it's all that much more like filling in. I think the color leads to some of the preservation
of it, and you're doing it on 212. Why change it on 210? Just curious why.
Kevin Ash: I have no idea.
Mr. Andrews: Why the change of color.
Kevin Ash: Yes. There was nothing--
Mr. Andrews: I think it's a simple way to contribute to the preservation of it.
Kevin Ash: Yes, it's yellow today, but it wasn't always yellow. I don't know what the
real color was.
Mr. Andrews: It'll remain tied to 212. It keeps them tied together in its own way, which is I think what we're trying to do here too.
Vice Chair O’Neil: I only have two more points and we can get off this building.
Mr. Andrews: The caboose.
Vice Chair O’Neil: One. I'd be perfectly happy. It sounds like what you're suggesting is if you just put your new building up to it and do nothing to this other than fixing up what needs to be fixed up, I wouldn't have a problem with that. If you decide to do something to it, I think what we're all trying to say is we don't know whether every
window opening is changing. There's a difference between it's got vinyl side and it's
got new trim, but the shell of the building, are you changing windows? It sounds like you don't even know yet whether the windows are different sizes or not. That's my point is that if you're going to dig into it, dig into it and do it.
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
45 | P a g e J a n u a r y 1 7 , 2 0 2 4
Kevin Ash: Yes. Based on everything I'm hearing, it would be better approached as
a single application so that we could singularly focus on this structure in itself, because I think we've made so much progress elsewhere, this still lags so far behind that we should probably separate this.
Chairman Aikman: Caboose is wagging the dog, right? [laughs]
Kevin Ash: Yes. The tail is wagging the dog, for sure.
Mr. Brown: I still say something and out of respect to it, what if their research about some of the existing features not being there is wrong?
Chairman Aikman: Fair enough.
Mr. Brown: It's like this just hasn't really been ferreted out.
Chairman Aikman: I agree, but I think it's time.
Mr. Brown: I don't take it at face value.
Chairman Aikman: I agree. I think we should move on. Let's move on to 212. Go ahead.
Vice Chair O’Neil: I'll start with that because we mentioned the building on Loudoun
Street. I think that was a perfect example of even though there were vinyl windows in
the front elevation, we require that they install wood windows to replace them. I know you were saying in your presentation that the wood windows are not original and therefore you can replace them.
Chairman Aikman: You said you were going to use wood windows.
Kevin Ash: Yes.
Vice Chair O’Neil: Okay. I missed that point there.
Ms. Murphy: We're going to submit a separate application if we want to replace windows in 212.
Kevin Ash: Correct.
Ms. Murphy: Correct.
Kevin Ash: Yes.
Chairman Aikman: I think we're square on the windows at this point.
Mr. Brown: Just removing it right now-
Chairman Aikman: Pardon me?
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
46 | P a g e J a n u a r y 1 7 , 2 0 2 4
Mr. Brown: -it would be a new COA for the windows?
Ms. Murphy: Correct.
Kevin Ash: Yes.
Chairman Aikman: Correct.
Kevin Ash: Leaving the windows as existing in 212.
Ms. Pastor: We're on 212 now. We're not--
Chairman Aikman: We're on 212 and unfortunately, we're headed into pebbledash territory.
Ms. Murphy: It's okay. You guys can disagree with me. I'm just going to tell you what my staff--
Chairman Aikman: He agrees with you.
Mr. Andrews: I like the pebbledash.
Chairman Aikman: Okay.
Vice Chair O’Neil: The level of detail, again, it's hard for me to say a whole lot about it. When I look at the elevations, like the little back entrance, I know the ramp's going
away, that gets you up there, but the door's two feet above the ground now and stuff.
Again, these are just details, but massing, general concept, good, lack of detail and information on a lot of the other parts.
Michael Wood: My goal is that they don't have to stay exactly the way it is.
Chairman Aikman: What are we talking about? Are we talking about--
Vice Chair O’Neil: 212.
Michael Wood: We're going to clean up the paint because that's really what's the worst part of that house. I don't want to change anything. The goal was just to keep it as is. I should just put a picture of the thing there. The only thing we're removing is that ramp. I should show a little set of wooden stairs just to go up, just to mimic what
was there [crosstalk].
Vice Chair O’Neil: I just bring that up because it also leads to a few other things. I think there's a basement area way door. The elevation's going up, what'd you say, 14 inches or something?
Kevin Ash: 14 inches, yes.
Vice Chair O’Neil: It's a fairly minor thing, but an accurate drawing that shows how
that impacts the building would be good to see. That may have more impact than
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
47 | P a g e J a n u a r y 1 7 , 2 0 2 4
you think with the original foundation to have to build that up around it. I just think
before we can say out, sure, it's good to go. That's why I'm reluctant to say you could just separate everything from that because this is one big project. Bits and pieces to me get kind of hard to deal with on this.
Chairman Aikman: I think they need to know, you're saying that they need to
provide detailed drawings that take into account the change in the elevation.
Vice Chair O'Neil: Right now, I really only saw
one note on this site plan that showed this 12% slope or whatever it was to get from the street back to the site. No side elevation of how does that effect 212.
Kevin Ash: The grade raises up on the brick foundation.
Vice Chair O’Neil: Isn't there a BILCO cover and a door down to the basement and
some other stuff, the landing, it's going to become a side porch.
Kevin Ash: It's not a BILCO hatch there.
Michael Wood: You can think of physical, it's like a little door.
Kevin Ash: The door would go away, you get through the basement from the inside.
Michael Wood: We could do just a floor-hatch inside.
Chairman Aikman: I would say then, you just need to take a pass at the drawing to make sure that the stuff that's coming out of zoning and so on gets-
Kevin Ash: Detailed.
Chairman Aikman: -appropriately detailed. Does that make sense? Is that right?
Vice Chair O’Neil: Yes.
Kevin Ash: I guess the larger question is position on pebbledash versus wood siding.
Chairman Aikman: Right. I would say. Tom, the last time we discussed this, you had done some research. Just to step back, my issue with just reflexively requiring
the pebbledash to stay in place, is the same question I raised before, which is if
there's something inherently structurally unsound about the pebbledash, in other words, if there's no vapor barrier behind it, and that this is going to cause problems from a rot perspective on the original siding, does it make sense to require the pebbledash to stay in place? I don't know if we know the answer to that, but you
were doing some research about repair of pebbledash.
Vice Chair O’Neil: It was very quick, but there are companies out there that specialize in it. I think you'd have to do some research to see, is there a lot of water damage? It didn't appear like the building was rotting from the inside out.
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
48 | P a g e J a n u a r y 1 7 , 2 0 2 4
Michael Wood: Again, very large bubbles though on that. From the site visit, we saw
those huge water bubbles and repairs that have happened already that are just, I don't know if they've rip their plaster, it looks like.
Kevin Ash: Again, we're taking a read from the Board, from a direction standpoint. We heard a lot of in favor of going back to the original German siding, so that's what
our application says today. We're really indifferent. We want to know from you guys,
it sounded last time like you wanted the wood siding.
Mr. Brown: Probably going around. [laughs]
Ms. Pastor: I came around to the pebbledash, actually.
Vice Chair O’Neil: Maybe it wasn't a consensus, but I thought it was that the
pebbledash would be great to keep, but if you showed us that it really was causing
trouble with the building, I could live with the wood siding underneath and repairing and restoring as required.
Ms. Pastor: That's where we were.
Chairman Aikman: That's exactly where we were.
Mr. Andrews: Pebbledash was preferred, but we just needed to understand that
there was not some inherent problem with the pebbledash or some significant challenge in restoring it or whatever. Plan B was [crosstalk]
Chairman Aikman: Let me give you an example, this house on Loudoun Street that we saw. In that case, the wood siding on the house had been replaced. It was
replaced badly, and the result was there was a huge amount of rot. The applicant
came forward and said, "Can we put a hardie plank on it." Normally, we would say, "You got to stay with the wood repair," da, da, da, da, right? It turned out that not only was it not original, but it was in such bad shape and had been done so badly that there was no reason to require it.
Vice Chair O’Neil: It was rotted, OSB showing underneath it. Obviously, it had been
completely stripped off.
Chairman Aikman: Right. It's not strictly analogous because it wasn't original, and the pebbledash, though it's not original, it's probably old enough to be historic. If there's some fundamental flaw associated with the pebbledash that's going to cause
damage over time, and beyond sustainable--
Kevin Ash: I don't think that this house, the structures, irreparable damage. Yes, there are some bubbles, there are some areas that need repair. I don't think it's irreparable. We would be fine keeping the pebbledash.
Chairman Aikman: I think that the consensus was, if it's doable to keep the
pebbledash and it's not going to cause--
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
49 | P a g e J a n u a r y 1 7 , 2 0 2 4
Mr. Brown: It's not a consensus.
Mr. Scheuerman: Well then, just state your position.
Mr. Brown: I think there's some value that the pebbledash is historic due to the definition, but I don't think that's more historic than the architectural design of the original builder, and that's where you have the German siding, with whatever the trim
is underneath, and just look at what you've done next door. Already you're exposing
details that are much more congruous to the building. Now this is up to you. This is just my opinion. If it's easier for you to bring it back to wood, I would prefer to see that, because think it's more historic than looking at pebbledash, which is now becoming the character of the building that doesn't properly represent the rest of the
aesthetic.
Chairman Aikman The one thing I would say, and I would defer to the staff on this because I think the staff is going to have a comment in response to that. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the guidelines are specific that what is character-defining historic material should be repaired, right, or replaced in kind.
Ms. Murphy: I mean, staff would just disagree with the idea that an original material
is more appropriate than an alternative historic material. I think that the pebbledash stucco tells a specific story for this specific structure. If the BAR supports removing the pebbledash, I think you just need to have findings specific to that, that's not the staff position. Staff supports and has continued to support through all of these staff
reports the restoration of the pebbledash, not changing to smooth finish stucco and
not changing to the wood. Typically, when we see alterations that have been made to historic buildings that have had historic integrity in their own right, we preserve those the same way we do original material.
Chairman Aikman: As you have pointed out, the Board can decide differently.
Ms. Murphy: You can absolutely decide. You can decide to go a different way.
Chairman Aikman: When I said the consensus, Rick, I didn't mean to say it was unanimous. I felt that the drift, if you will, was to repairing and replacing in kind the pebbledash, if that's possible, instead of removing it, but let's do a straw poll on that. Can we do that? Julie, where are you?
Mr. Scheuerman: Before you do that, I do want to say, I agree that if you can do the
pebbledash, but if it's causing damage by being there, returning to the original intent [crosstalk].
Chairman Aikman: Yes, that was my point at the beginning.
Mr. Scheuerman: I think that's important that that distinction be made and that be a
strong distinction. Yes, can we repair it? If it's damage behind it, we're better off. Our
ultimate mission is to preserve the old and historic district for the long haul, not for the next 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, it's the long haul. We do these in years of 50. 50 years to be eligible under the Secretary of Interior Standard, so we're looking long
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
50 | P a g e J a n u a r y 1 7 , 2 0 2 4
haul. I agree with Tom, in that, if you could preserve it, and it supports the longevity
of the building, in addition to its historic structure, then that's the way to go. If it's putting the longevity of the historic building in jeopardy, then I think we have to do the right thing, which is to return it to the German siding.
Mr. Brown: There's other things with that building too, perspective-wise. To get a
little bit away from the pebble, which I'll come back to the pebble. That roof color,
staff, do you know if there was ever a COA to make it red?
Ms. Murphy: To paint the entire structure red or paint the roof red?
Mr. Brown: Paint the roof red.
Ms. Murphy: No.
Mr. Brown: That's a loaded question. Basically, that's not a red roof. It's red now
because they painted it within the past probably 8, 10 years. It was a gray roof. The only thing that was actually red was the first foot. It was kind of a joke on the street as the previous owner, the guy who, I forget the gentleman's name, I'll look into that, but it was only red enough for you to see it. It's not even a red roof, so having the
haul to what we think is current and keep it red or keep it-- Actually, I don't want to
disagree with staff.
Chairman Aikman: I think what--
Mr. Brown: I'm getting to the point. If it's better for you to go back to an easier design that is still historic, then I'd actually go with that.
Ms. Murphy: From the staff perspective, I would just say changes in color are much
different than changes in material. We typically view color as being very reversible and there are some jurisdictions that don't even regulate color at all.
Chairman Aikman: I think that the direction that you're hearing from the Board is, I think Don said it succinctly, if you can repair the pebbledash and it's sustainable for
the long haul, we would in general prefer that. Not that we prefer it, it's consistent
with the guidelines.
Kevin Ash: Understood. We will move in that direction.
Chairman Aikman: I don't see any real reason at this point to depart from the guidelines. You get a contractor out there who does pebbledash and he looks at it
and he says, "Oh, what a mess this is."
Kevin Ash: You are the pebbledash master, so.
Chairman Aikman: Okay. [laughs]
Ms. Murphy: I'll put your name on my contact list of contractors.
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
51 | P a g e J a n u a r y 1 7 , 2 0 2 4
Chairman Aikman: Okay. I think for the moment we've dispatched with a
pebbledash. We've talked about the windows. The staff would like a detailed list of all proposed replacements. I think we've discussed that and I'm sure that you'll come forward with that. You've done it before, you can do it again. Addition, new design more consistent with the guidelines. I think we have indicated that we feel that it is
more consistent with the guidelines. I think there's a feeling that there could be more
detailing. I think Tom addressed that, and I would expect that to be maturing as you go through the iterations of the design.
Kevin Ash: Can we touch on that briefly?
Chairman Aikman: Sure.
Kevin Ash: Can we see the current updated today a couple of hour ago, John? Yes.
Chairman Aikman: [chuckles] 15 minutes ago.
Kevin Ash: Let me get to just the side elevation so we can get Tom's opinion on details. I guess hearing what you said before, some detailing and changing, Tom, do you think a stone foundation underneath the band would read better?
Vice Chair O'Neil: Not necessarily. I'm just trying to make the point that, to me, it
looks awkward. You have one rhythm with all the garage doors and then the windows above or something completely different.
Ms. Murphy: You mean because the bays don't line up. The windows above don't line up with the garage doors below. Is that what you mean?
Vice Chair O'Neil: Yes, and it's just one big blank wall with all these punched
openings in it. I'm not even saying the tripartite is the way you have to go. I just think articulating the facade more, I think you are starting to get there with the corbeling you're talking about doing up on the cornice and things like that.
Kevin Ash: I think that heightens that cornice line on the brick in the middle when
you corbel it out and add soldier course.
Ms. Murphy: Is it possible for the garage doors to line up with the windows, either by making the windows larger?
Michael Wood: Garage doors can't really move. The windows could move because those are more in the old alignment with the floors, so I could--
Ms. Murphy: That might help to space them so that it looks a little more purposeful.
Kevin Ash: Yes, we probably could now. Rhythmically, that's from a balance standpoint.
Vice Chair O'Neil: I think that would help. Then just a higher level of detailing, whether it's with different projections of brick or introducing a different material for
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
52 | P a g e J a n u a r y 1 7 , 2 0 2 4
trim. I'm not saying one is better than the other, but I guess I've always had a little bit
of an issue with the warehouse idea. As this design has developed, I just feel like it's lagging behind the other components of this overall design.
Chairman Aikman: Do you feel like the front part is okay from a detail perspective? When I say the front part, I mean the front brick.
Vice Chair O'Neil: The link piece behind 212 I think is getting there. I just think that
proportion of the windows, there's still some issues with it, I think. To me, it's more successful than the warehouse.
Kevin Ash: Proportions you think are imbalanced?
Vice Chair O'Neil: Yes. The link I'm not sure if it's trying to be a warehouse or a
townhouse right now with the--
Chairman Aikman: To me-- I don't know if I could just cut in. To me, it looks very much like a loft building that you would see in Atlanta or something, like the Ford--
Vice Chair O'Neil: Georgetown?
Chairman Aikman: Yes, or Georgetown. It looks--
Ms. Murphy: They love your [crosstalk].
Ms. Pastor: Which are you talking about?
Chairman Aikman: I'm talking about the warehouse piece. It looks like a warehouse building that's been converted into lofts, to me. It looks pretty--
Kevin Ash: Ritz Carlton is like that in Georgetown.
Chairman Aikman: I don't think we would necessarily expect a building like that to
be detailed at a very high level, but you know what I mean?
Kevin Ash: We were pulling details from other warehouse structures from different time periods to get some of these details.
Chairman Aikman: I'm not disagreeing that it could-
Vice Chair O’Neil: Yes, I would just say that-
Chairman Aikman: -benefit from that.
Vice Chair O’Neil: -I understand what they're after. I'm just saying, if you go look at lofts in Georgetown and New York, I think you'll find there's a lot more detailing in the brickwork than you'd think at first glance.
Chairman Aikman: Not the ones in Atlanta, though. [laughter] I'm just kidding.
Sorry.
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
53 | P a g e J a n u a r y 1 7 , 2 0 2 4
Kevin Ash: Understood. Some balance with window rhythms and some more
details.
Michael Wood: The big challenge that I've had is the massing, though, is okay. To get into the nitty-gritty of where the soldier courses are and the rowlocks and running bonds and all that stuff, it's a lot of time and energy, but then if the massing is wrong,
to redo that all takes-
Chairman Aikman: I think in the beginning, that's why--
Michael Wood: -usually hours and hours of time. That's why it's a fine balance of how far I'd go before then I-- [crosstalk]
Chairman Aikman: That's why I went to that first in the conversation. That's why I
went to the massing first because I wanted to be sure.
Vice Chair O’Neil: I would just go back to Julie's initial comment when we first started looking at this. It was very early in the game. I think you have to accept that in order for us to approve it, there's going to be longer than it would be if you came with a more complete design to begin with. This came to us before. A lot of this has
evolved because you hadn't gotten feedback from zoning or engineering staff or
anything else yet. You're redesigning on the fly, but that's not our fault. [chuckles]
Kevin Ash: No, I'm not saying it's anybody's fault. It's an iterative process. We-
Chairman Aikman: We bought into the process.
Kevin Ash: -[crosstalk], we understood that from the beginning.
Chairman Aikman: We bought into the process. I'm fine with that. Your comments
are well-taken. I'm sure Michael will take them back and do what he can.
Kevin Ash: Okay. Thank you, Tom.
Chairman Aikman: Anything else that we need to-- I think that we've hit the list.
Ms. Murphy: Yes. Good job.
Chairman Aikman: What we need to do now, in my opinion, and according to the
staff, is we need to extend the critical action date. We need to get you on the calendar for the next work session that you're going to be ready for.
Ms. Murphy: If you can be ready. I'm asking for a revised drawings by 1/26. Unless you want to just say that's your revised drawing.
Kevin Ash: No, we get 210 right now.
Ms. Murphy: You want to make changes based on [crosstalk]
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
54 | P a g e J a n u a r y 1 7 , 2 0 2 4
Michael Wood: We'll have to change that because we're going to take 210 off the
application, leave pebbledash, so no window changes, and then we'll work on details and keep up getting the details.
Ms. Murphy: I would recommend that you push it out beyond that February 5th date. I suspect that we're probably going to need more than one work session.
Mr. Scheuerman: Otherwise, we'll keep doing this.
Ms. Pastor: I think we should at least go to [crosstalk]
Chairman Aikman: My suggestion would be to go to March, but we can go to April. I just feel like it's a balloon.
Ms. Murphy: Sure. There's nothing that keeps you from it. It's not like--
Chairman Aikman: Gas expands to fill the space it has.
Kevin Ash: I'd rather not extend it beyond two more meeting sessions, because extending it much beyond there, it's like this-- We got to bring it to a closure definitely.
Chairman Aikman: No, no, no. I agree. I would say March.
Ms. Murphy: There's nothing that stops you from extending it again if you get to
March and feel like you need that April work session.
Chairman Aikman: Okay.
Kevin Ash: Fair.
Chairman Aikman: Who wants to--
Ms. Pastor: Is the March meeting on the 4th?
Ms. Murphy: I would let it include the business meeting [crosstalk]
Chairman Aikman: Yes, that will be my suggestion, too.
Ms. Pastor: Down to 18, no 20.
Ms. Murphy: Especially because if we have snow or bad weather, we might end up
in a situation where something happens to February, and then that's the whole thing.
Kevin Ash: Good point.
Ms. Pastor: You're talking about extending it to March 20th?
Chairman Aikman: Yes.
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
55 | P a g e J a n u a r y 1 7 , 2 0 2 4
Ms. Murphy: Yes.
Chairman Aikman: Deferring to the next work session, which is March 4. I mean-
Ms. Murphy: Which is February the 5th.
Chairman Aikman: -February 4. February whatever. I would love to make the motion, but I can't. Somebody would go for that.
Ms. Pastor: Go for it Tom.
Chairman Aikman: Hmm?
Ms. Pastor: Tom can go for it.
Chairman Aikman: Tom?
Vice Chair O’Neil: Hi. I move that the BAR extend the critical action date for the
BAR application TLHPBR2023-0033 to the March public hearing.
Ms. Murphy: 20th, public.
Ms. Pastor: March 20th.
Vice Chair O’Neil: 20th.
Ms. Murphy: 20th.
Vice Chair O’Neil: That the case be moved to the February. What was the date?
Work session.
Ms. Pastor: February 5th.
Ms. Murphy: 5th.
Ms. Pastor: 5th.
Vice Chair O’Neil: 5th. The February 5th work session.
Ms. Pastor: Right. Second.
Chairman Aikman: The motion came from Tom O'Neil, it was seconded by Julie Pastor. All in favor?
Board Members: Aye.
Chairman Aikman: Opposed? The motion passes, 6-0 with one absence. Then we'll
see you on the 5th.
Kevin Ash: Thank you.
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
56 | P a g e J a n u a r y 1 7 , 2 0 2 4
Chairman Aikman: Thank you.
Kevin Ash: Appreciate it.
Ms. Murphy: Good job.
Chairman Aikman: All right, ladies and gentlemen, old business. Anyone have old business? No. Anyone have new business? We have new business. Election of
2024 BAR officers.
Mr. Brown: They're still here. Is there any possibility to move the work session to the 6th?
Ms. Murphy: Probably not.
Mr. Brown: It's just my request. It may be bad for everybody. I was just checking.
Ms. Parry: No. The meeting room is not available.
Chairman Aikman: I will not be here on the 6th.
Ms. Murphy: Does that mean you have to miss the 5th?
Mr. Brown: I don't have to. It would just change plans, but that's it.
Chairman Aikman: Any other new business before we do the election thing? How
do we go about this? I guess Don is--
Mr. Scheuerman: Chairman, I think I had been nominated as the person who put together a slate for the office. After meeting with each of the members, I think we've come up with a good consensus slate. Slate consists of Tom O'Neil as the chair, Helen Aikman as the vice chair, and Julie Pastor as the parliamentarian. That would
be the slate that I would offer up having spoken with all the members and come to a
consensus.
Chairman Aikman: We can have discussion. Would anybody like to discuss the slate? Excellent. Does someone have to move for approval of the slate? Preferably someone who's not nominated.
Ms. Pastor: You make the motion.
Mr. Scheuerman: Oh, I move that Tom O'Neil be nominated as Chair of the Board of Architectural Review, Helen Aikman as the vice chair and Julie Pastor as the parliamentarian.
Chairman Aikman: This is for calendar 2024?
Mr. Scheuerman: 2024, yes.
Ms. Pastor: It's not nominated, it's the nominations be approved.
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
57 | P a g e J a n u a r y 1 7 , 2 0 2 4
Mr. Scheuerman: There you go. That's why she's the parliamentarian.
Chairman Aikman: We'll keep her.
[laughter]
Ms. Murphy: To be determined, you have to vote first.
Ms. Pastor: TBD.
Chairman Aikman: Okay. All in favor?
Ms. Schmidt: We didn't second.
Chairman Aikman: Oh, second. Sorry. Second?
Mr. Andrews: I will second it.
Mr. Brown: Oh, we got multiple seconds.
Vice Chair O’Neil: As long as you said it, yes.
Chairman Aikman: We have the motion from Don Scheuerman and a second from JP Andrews. All in favor?
Board Members: Aye.
Chairman Aikman: Opposed? Okay. The slate passes is approved as it was
proposed by vote of 6-0 with one absence. Congratulations. You're the one in trouble
now.
Ms. Murphy: He looks nervous.
Mr. Scheuerman: Madam Chair, is there any other business?
Vice Chair Aikman: No. Actually, now that [crosstalk], it's Mr. Chair.
Mr. Scheuerman: Mr. Chair.
Ms. Pastor: The chair now needs to-
Mr. Brown: Is there any additional--
Ms. Pastor: -entertain a motion. All right.
Chairman O’Neil: I move that we adjourn. Any other news?
Ms. Murphy: I just wanted to thank Helen for her service as chairman. She's done a
great job and she's faithfully served the office. Thank you so much for all of your hard work.
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
58 | P a g e J a n u a r y 1 7 , 2 0 2 4
Vice Chair Aikman: Well, it's been a great pleasure working with y'all. I move that
we'd be adjourned.
[laughter]
Mr. Scheuerman: Second.
Chairman O’Neil: All in favor?
Board Members: Aye.
Chairman O’Neil: Pass at 6-0-1.
Vice Chair Aikman: You're supposed to say opposed. If anyone opposed.
Chairman O’Neil: Anyone opposed?
The meeting was adjourned at 9:28pm.