Board of Architectural Review

Town of Vienna 127 Center Street South Vienna, Virginia 22180 p: 703.255.6341 TTY 7111 Meeting Minutes Board of Architectural Review Thursday, December 19, 2019 8:00 PM COUNCIL CHAMBERS-VIENNA TOWN HALL Roll Call The Board of Architectural Review met in regular session in the Vienna Town Hall, 127 Center Street, South Vienna, Virginia, with Paul Layer presiding as Chair. The following members were present: Linda van Doorn, Roy Baldwin, Michael Cheselka, and Patty Hanley. Andrea West, Planner, Kelly O’Brien Principal Planner, and Sharmaine Abaied, Board Clerk, were present. Mr. Layer opened the meeting for the Board of Architectural Review and welcomed the Boards new member Ms. Linda van Doorn. He then asked for the roll to be called. ROLL CALL: Ms. Abaied called roll with Linda van Doorn, Roy Baldwin, Paul Layer, Michael Cheselka, and Patty Hanley being present. Approval of Meeting Minutes Mr. Baldwin mentioned that he was listed as present and absent at the November meeting and asked for that to be corrected. Mr. Cheselka made a motion to approve the November 2019 meeting minutes with correction. Mr. Baldwin seconded the motion. Motion: Cheselka Second: Baldwin Approved: 5-0 Mr. Layer asked if there were any questions about the work session minutes that were submitted for review. He then stated that the Board would move forward with accepting minutes if there weren’t any questions, per the parliamentarian training they had received. There were no questions by the Board for the work session minutes, they were accepted as submitted. Public Hearings 1. 405 (401-409) Maple Ave E - Kochin Kitchen Indian Dinning - Sign Request for approval of replacement signs for Kochin Kitchen Indian Dining located at 405 (401-409) Maple Ave. E., Docket No. PF-58-19-BAR, in the C-2 General Commercial zoning district; filed by Suku Nair, business owner. Mr. Suku Nair was present to represent the application. Town of Vienna Page 1 Printed on 1/27/2020 Board of Architectural Review Meeting Minutes December 19, 2019 Ms. Hanley asked if the sign in the middle would be the new sign and the other two would remain, Mr. Nair said that was correct. Mr Cheselka made a motion that request for approval of replacement signs for Kochin Kitchen Indian Dining located at 405 (401-409) Maple Ave. E., Docket No. PF-58-19-BAR, be approved as submitted. Motion: Cheselka Second: Hanley Approved: 5-0 2. 308 Dominion Rd NE - Med Spa - Sign Item No. 2: Request for approval of a replacement sign panel for Med Spa located at 308 Dominion Road NE, Docket No. PF-59-19-BAR, in the CM Limited Industrial zoning district; filed by Shirin Nariman, business operator. Ms. Shirin Nariman was present to represent her application. Mr. Baldwin asked for a description of the new colors. Ms. West stated they would have to match the sample submitted. Ms. van Doorn asked if the colors would be enough of a contrast. Ms. Nariman stated it would. Mr. Cheselka commented that they yellow would fade and Ms. Nariman stated she loved the color yellow. Ms. Hanley stated her concerns about the color contrast and stated a darker color than the white. Mr. Baldwin pointed out that there will be black outline around that would offer contrast. Ms. Hanley commented about the border as well. Mr. Layer asked if only the faceplate was being changed and all other mechanisms and electrical would stay the same, Ms. Nariman said yes. Mr. Baldwin made a motion that the request for approval of a replacement sign panel for Med Spa located at 308 Dominion Road NE, Docket No. PF-59-19-BAR, be approved as submitted. Motion: Baldwin Second: Cheselka Approved: 5-0 3. 502 Maple Ave W - Younger Image Plastic Surgery - Sign Request for approval of a façade sign and replacement panel sign (freestanding) for Younger Image Plastic Surgery located at 502 Maple Avenue W, Docket No. PF-60-19-BAR, in the C-1 Local Commercial zoning district; filed by Ruth Vanlandingham, Service Neon Signs, sign agent. Ms. Ruth Vanlandingham was present to represent the application. Ms. Hanley stated she had questions about the kelvins on the façade sign and mentioned Town of Vienna Page 2 Printed on 1/27/2020 Board of Architectural Review Meeting Minutes December 19, 2019 that the Board typically like to see around 4000 or less. Ms. Vanlandingham stated that with the plastic and blue over the lights it would end up around 80 lumens. Ms. Hanley said that she was speaking on the kelvins and not the lumens and she would like to see the numbers closer to the incandescent days. Mr. Layer stated the lumen level can remain as is, but the request is that the kelvin level get closer to 3000 or 4000. Mr. Baldwin stated his concern with the façade sign and said he would like to see the name of the doctor somewhere above or next to “Plastic Surgery”. He encouraged the applicant to use what was proposed for the pylon sign on the façade sign as well. Mr. Layer stated he felt the size of the sign was too big for the façade off the building. Mr. Layer asked about the recalculation of the size of the surface and what was allowable. Ms. West stated she had worked with Ms. Vanlandingham and Service Neon Signs to find out what the sign allowance would be. Mr. Layer asked if the sign took the maximum for every tenant in terms of total area. Ms. West stated it would. Mr. Layer asked if the allowable was difficult to see at the moment and Ms. West stated it was difficult to see what the allocation was beyond the pylon sign. Mr. Layer asked if all tenants were represented at the moment and Ms. West stated she was not sure. Mr. Layer stated it was the Boards practice to not allow one tenant to have a sign that dominates the entire façade precluding any other tenant from having a sign. Mr. Layer stated he felt they needed more information about what was allowable. Ms. Hanley stated Freedom Bank had two signs and asked if those signs were included in her calculations. Ms. West stated they were not and said she was not sure which frontage was used to calculate the sign area for those signs. Ms. Hanley stated she understood that there was only one building front and signs should be calculated from the primary and Ms. West stated she was correct. Mr. Layer mentioned the Karin’s Florist building and that all signs were similar in size, meeting the allowable. He continued stating the Plastic Surgery sign was uniquely larger than any of the Karin’s Florist signs. Mr. Layer asked if the motion could be split so more research could be done on the sign, calculate the other signs, and get a letter from the owner stating the sign is approved precluding other tenants from putting up signs. Ms. Vanlandingham stated the owner approved the sign. Ms. Hanley stated the Board wanted to make sure the owner knew what was approved. There was discussion regarding frontage and where signs can be located. Mr. Baldwin made a motion that the request for approval of the replacement panel sign (freestanding) for Younger Image Plastic Surgery located at 502 Maple Avenue W, Docket No. PF-60-19-BAR, be approved as submitted. Motion: Baldwin Second: Hanley Approved: 5-0 Mr. Baldwin made a motion that the request for approval of the façade sign for Younger Image Plastic Surgery located at 502 Maple Avenue W, Docket No. PF-60-19-BAR, be deferred for owners input that the sign would take up all allowable sign space on the building, for the Board to learn the upper limit of the allowable for the entire building relating to the existing signs. Motion: Baldwin Second: Cheselka Town of Vienna Page 3 Printed on 1/27/2020 Board of Architectural Review Meeting Minutes December 19, 2019 Approved: 5-0 Ms. Vanlandingham asked if the sign as presented would be approved if the landlord approved the size. Mr. Layer stated the Board needed more information and if the sign met the code. Mr. Layer recused himself from Item No. 4 and Mr. Baldwin stepped in as Chair. 4. 374-380 Maple Ave W - Sunrise of Vienna - Exterior Modifications - MAC (Article 13.1) Request for recommendation to Town Council regarding compliance with requirements of Article 13.1 of the Town Code for the proposed Sunrise of Vienna multi-use building with assisted living and restaurant/café space, located at 374-380 Maple Avenue, W, (Docket No. PF-57- 19-MAC), in the MAC Maple Avenue Commercial; filed by Sara Mariska, on behalf of Sunrise Development, Inc. Ms. O’Brien asked if she could give a brief presentation before the applicant came forward to represent their application. Ms. O’Brien presented the following findings of fact:  Existing 3-story office building, built in 1970, with 23,620 square feet of office space and 70 off-street parking spaces  June 17, 2019 - Rezoned from C-1 Local Commercial and RS-16 Single-Family Detached Residential zoning districts to MAC Maple Avenue Commercial zoning district for mixed-use building with ⁻ 7,500 square feet of ground floor retail ⁻ 37 multifamily residential condominium units ⁻ 125 parking spaces in structured parking ⁻ August 19, 2019 – Amendments to proffered conditions to provide 36 foot roadway within existing Wade Hampton Drive SW right of way in place of the 32 foot roadway previously approved. Recommendation by the Planning Commission to the Town Council on  proposed amendment to proffered conditions  related request for modifications of requirements Recommendation by the Planning Commission to the Board of Zoning Appeals on  conditional use permit for assisted living facility for seniors in Maple Avenue Commercial (MAC) Zone per Section 18-95.5.J. for Sunrise of Vienna, a mixed-use building with ground floor restaurant and 85 unit assisted living facility, located at 374 to 380 Maple Avenue West, in Maple Avenue Commercial (MAC) Zone. Ms. Sara Mariska was present to represent the application. Ms. Mariska stated that Sunrise had been before the Board previously for the application at 100 Maple Ave E. The Board supported the application, but the Town Council denied the rezoning application. Since the denial Sunrise has been able to put 380 Maple Ave W under contract. Sunrise has been working to make adjustments to that site to make it suitable for assisted living while carrying forward as much of the previously approved design as possible. Ms. Mariska mentioned that they had worked closely with the community as well as Boards and Commissions to take care of outstanding issues. Mr. Scott Fleming and Mr. John Rust presented the renderings for the Board to review. Town of Vienna Page 4 Printed on 1/27/2020 Board of Architectural Review Meeting Minutes December 19, 2019 He started with the first floor pointing out the covered seating area and the entrances to the site. Mr. Fleming pointed out that the additional curb cut on Maple allows them to eliminate some of the curb cuts on Wade Hampton. Mr. Fleming showed the differences between the previously approved project versus what Sunrise was submitting. Mr. Fleming discussed the areas that many didn’t want changed to include the tower so they chose not to make changes. The areas of adjustment were: brick façade versus siding at the request of the neighbors, recessed the services entrances to a single entrance that is set back, differentiation in brick between the commercial façade and the residence façade, straightened out the headers for consistency and regularity rather than arches, pitched roof in the back to be harmonious with the neighborhood, reduced the amount of windows to include no windows in the stairwell, the windows for the “infill porch” were removed from the side, moved some of the green element to screen the mechanical equipment, reduced the height of the bio retention planters to be in scale with pedestrians while wrapping around the corner of Wade Hampton to soften the height, added color variations of materials to bring to a residential scale, changed the bio retention planter to a serpentine wall to soften it, added a transformer enclosure with matching brick to the building and a decorative gate, carried over the Wade Hampton elevation to another façade, and the tower element wraps around on Maple to create an ornamental entrance. Mr. Fleming showed some examples of what they’ve done in the past to show what they were drawing from as well as what changes they are proposing will look like. Mr. Fleming showed the 3D renderings to the Board and members of the audience to give another view of what they were proposing and the changes that were made per requests from the Board, Commission, and community. Mr. Baldwin asked how steep the slant was for the mansard roof. Mr. Fleming stated it should be a 15 degree pitch. Mr. Baldwin asked if there would be a substantial sign on the tower that said “Sunrise”. Mr. Fleming stated they anticipated some type of signage. Mr. Rust stated there would possibly be a blade sign, but nothing large and a sign on the store front. Mr. Rust stated they would come back to the Board for signage. Mr. Baldwin stated he did not believe the Town allowed for blade signs. He continued stating that there should be room on the corner for a sign to indicate that it is a Sunrise building. Mr. Fleming stated there would be a sign on the canopy of the front door, and agreed that there needed to be a sign to indicate the location of the building. Mr. O’Brien added clarification regarding signage in the Maple Avenue Commercial in which they could have different signage if they had a master sign plan. Mr. Fleming stated that he did have material samples of the brick for the Board to view. He stated they would come back for the formal final application. The brick they brought was for general intent, but they have not been submitted to suppliers for availability. A few Board members had questions about the varying colors and the façade they were intended for. Mr. Cheselka asked about the façade that had the yellow paneling and why it was changed. Mr. Fleming stated they went to the neighborhood to see what they preferred and they had brought a few options. The neighbors preferred the option with the red brick. Ms. van Doorn asked how the paneling would differ from vinyl and if it would fade. Mr. Rust stated it would last a long time as it was a rubber material. Ms. Hanley stated she had some comments that were outside their purview (dealing with trees), but she wanted to make the comments. Proffer 1.3 regarding height should specify the tower with that height. Proffer 6.1 is specific, not lending to flexibility, with regard to trees on Glen Avenue. It would be preferential to leave room for flexibility rather than calling out only two specific trees. Ms. Hanley asked to look at the secondary entrance on Town of Vienna Page 5 Printed on 1/27/2020 Board of Architectural Review Meeting Minutes December 19, 2019 Wade Hampton, page A.2 of the plans. She felt the water table color should be adjusted because it will collect road dust due to it being light in color. Ms. Hanley asked for the height of the serpentine wall. Mr. Fleming stated it was not a specific height yet and that it was a bio retention planter and had to collect drainage and should be 4-5 feet. Ms. Hanley asked if the sizes of the transformers in the back had been determined. Mr. Fleming stated they had not and that they were still working with Dominion. Ms. Hanley asked if they would be about 15 by 15 and Mr. Fleming stated that on the outside dimensions, it may be roughly correct. He continued saying they would size to the minimum required by the transformer working with Dominion as they would tell Sunrise the size it needs to be. Ms. Hanley asked if the elevator overruns on page A3.1 were the worst case scenario and Mr. Fleming stated yes. Ms. Hanley asked if the elevators would stop on the roof and Mr. Fleming stated they did not as there was no rooftop terrace. Ms. Hanley asked about the Acorn lights and wanted to make sure that light would not be projected up when going back to the residential area. She wanted to ensure that it was minimum needed for the use. Mr. Fleming stated the lights specified were dictated by the Town. Ms. Hanley stated she wasn’t sure if it needed to be addressed at the Town Council level, but felt it was over lit. She asked if staff could speak with Public Works to see other lights could be used. Ms. Hanley asked if the bollard lights were Town light. It was discovered they were on private property and Mr. Fleming stated they were picked to mitigate any issued of over lighting. Mr. Cheselka asked if the one street lamp on Maple Ave would be enough light. Mr. Fleming stated there was an existing light that was already on the corner. Ms. O’Brien stated the cobra light on the corner was not highlighted. Mr. Cheselka asked about the lighting on the left side of the building when facing the front façade of the building. Mr. Fleming stated there would not be any lighting intended there because there is no access in that area because it is all landscaping. Mr. Cheselka stated he was disappointed with losing the paneling and asked whose decision it was to not go with paneling. Mr. Fleming stated it was a conversation with the neighbors, they had given them several options, and the brick was the preferred option. Mr. Baldwin asked if there were any suggestions from the neighbors that they did not adopt. Ms. Mariska stated there were no suggestions they did not adopt. The changes made were as follows: the paneling was changed to brick, the planter design to include a serpentine wall, the reduced glazing in the rear, the green element on the top level, removal of all the balconies in the rear, and a twenty foot step back on the top floor. Ms. Mariska stated there were other changes, but the ones mentioned were the most significant to the community. Mr. Baldwin said he could not see on the landscape plan the specific trees and their location, and asked if a decision had not been made yet. Ms. Mariska stated that was correct as it was conceptual at this point. At site plan they would make the specific selection which would be part of the final package to be reviewed for approval with the Board. Mr. Baldwin asked about the amended proffer on page two paragraph 1.2 states the architectural design of the building on the property will conform generally with the character and quality of the design shown of the elevations on the concept plan. Mr. Baldwin asked if it needed to conform exactly. Ms. Mariska stated the intent was to make the final design selections that would be approved during the final approval. This gives the flexibility to the applicant to make the changes discussed at the meeting, not to deviate substantially from what was shown to refine the details. Ms. van Doorn asked if the final proffer would include that language. Ms. Mariska stated they would come back before the Board with final material selections, building designs, and design drawings. Ms. van Doorn stated that it was a draft proffer and the final proffer would not use terms like generally. Ms. Mariska stated she would use the term generally in the final proffers as they were subject to final signature, but generally is intended to be used to capture the flexibility before going back to the Board. Ms. O’Brien stated the Town of Vienna Page 6 Printed on 1/27/2020 Board of Architectural Review Meeting Minutes December 19, 2019 proffers would be approved by the Town Council for the concept plan, and they would go back to the Board for a final site plan in which the Board would get into the details. The proffers would not need to be adjusted as the site plan would be the final design. Ms. van Doorn stated she was focusing on the language “draft proffer” and would there be a “final proffer”. Ms. O’Brien state at the Town Council stage it would be a final proffer. Ms. van Doorn asked if at the final proffer stage would the term “generally” be used. Ms. O’Brien stated there would still be flexibility in the concept. Coming back to the BAR at site plan would be for the final approval. Comments from the audience: Ms. Rebecca Eggers, 130 Wade Hampton Dr SW: Ms. Eggers stated there were several meetings amongst the neighbors regarding the back of the building. In general the neighbors preferred the brick with a town house type of feel. She continued stating Sunrise was a great partner to work with and had addressed nearly all of the concerns, other than the lighting and traffic which they cannot do when designing the building. Mr. John Pott, 134 Wade Hampton Dr SW: Mr. Pott stated he was happy with the industrial look of the car park entrance on Wade Hampton although it had not been discussed amongst the neighbors. He had hoped it could be softened a bit. Mr. Pott asked if the line of windows going down would be stairwell windows that would be lit at night. Mr. Fleming stated the windows are not in any corridors, they are all in units. Mr. Pott stated he felt Sunrise made the integrity of the building interesting with a coherence that makes it stand on its own. It was a huge improvement and appreciates what Sunrise has done. Mr. Chesleka asked if public art would be presented after all the approval process was complete. Ms. Mariska stated yes. Mr. Cheselka asked if the Board as approving or denying what was presented. Ms. O’Brien stated they would be making a recommendation to Town Council. Ms. West stated when the application comes back before the Board in the permit and site plan stage the Board will be reviewing for substantial conformance. Ms. Hanley made a motion that the request for recommendation to Town Council regarding compliance with requirements of Article 13.1 of the Town Code for the proposed Sunrise of Vienna multi-use building with assisted living and restaurant/café space, located at 374-380 Maple Avenue, W, (Docket No. PF-57- 19-MAC), with the following provisions: allow for the revision of the water table at the secondary entrance on Wade Hampton, replace the extra street lights on Wade Hampton with bollard lights as used on Glen or as determined by DPW, right size the transformer garage or screen with mix of hardscape and landscape to be determined at site plan review, and have DPW review the street trees along Maple Ave that appear to be in conflict with the vehicular site lines and make sure Town Council is aware that those trees may not be approved by DPW. Motion: Hanley Second: van Doorn Approved: 4-0 Abstain: Layer Discussion of Board Organization Mr. Layer spoke with the Board regarding the parliamentarian training they had the opportunity to attend. He asked for the Boards input on the following: - The person who seconds the motion does not have to agree with the motion; they are simply moving the motion along for discussion/debate. - During debate a Board member agrees with some items, but would like other items Town of Vienna Page 7 Printed on 1/27/2020 Board of Architectural Review Meeting Minutes December 19, 2019 changed. If there is an agreement by unanimous consent there is no need for an approval of an amendment. - When there is a complex motion, put the motion upon the screen to adjust, add, or subtract so everyone can see the motion. - Speakers have to take their turns and only speak during their turns. 1st group speaks, 2nd group speaks, etc. but the groups would not be allowed to speak to one another, there is to be no dialogue between the different groups. All groups get a chance to speak before any questions are answered. Mr. Layer also discussed with the Board allowing a Chair to serve for 4 years, and then an election of new officers to allow those interested in participating as Chair would be able to be Chair. There was discussion regarding how often other Boards elect officers. Mr. Cheselka made a motion that the BAR Chair and Vice-Chair be elected every 4 years. Ms. Hanley seconded the motion. Mr. Cheselka stated a four year period offers consistency and continuity. Ms. van Doorn asked if there had been issues with the shorter time frame for officers. Ms. West stated she had not been long with the town, but stated that Windover Heights was every 2 years, BZA was every year, and Planning Commission was every 2 years. Ms. Hanley stated she supported the motion and preferred every 4 years. 2 years was not long enough as the Board only meets once a month. Mr. Baldwin stated he preferred 4 years as well. It allows the person in the position as the Chair to have institutional knowledge, expertise, and proficiency. Mr. Layer stated there was not a lot turnover with the BAR and preferred the 4 year term as well. There was no more discussion so Mr. Layer called for a vote for the motion to have an election of BAR officers once every four years. Motion: Cheselka Second: Hanley Approved: 5-0 Mr. Layer stated that he would like to open to the Board regarding an actual election or just passing the Chair and Vice Chair on to the next person in line. Ms. van Doorn asked if it was for a person who expressed interest and then voted, but a person who has not expressed interest would not be voted into the position. Mr. Layer stated that was correct. Mr. Layer stated he would be stepping down as Chair so there would need to be a vote for a new Chair. Mr. Baldwin made a motion that an agenda item for the January meeting be election of a new Chair and Vice Chair. Ms. Hanley seconded the motion. Ms. Hanley asked if it would be appropriate that the election happen in January and the new officers transition the following meeting. Town of Vienna Page 8 Printed on 1/27/2020 Board of Architectural Review Meeting Minutes December 19, 2019 Mr. Layer asked for a vote on the motion to add an agenda item for the January meeting of electing a new Chair and Vice Chair. Motion: Baldwin Second: Hanley Approved: 5-0 Ms. West spoke with the Board regarding the new Economic Development Manager. She asked if the Board would be amenable to having her come speak with them at the end of the meeting. Ms. West mentioned that Cube Smart wanted to come back for another work session with the Board. Mr. Layer asked how the Board would like to address the Chair. Ms. van Doorn stated she preferred Mr. and Madam. The other board members agreed with Ms. van Doorn. Meeting Adjournment Mr. Baldwin made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Cheselka seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned at 10:14 PM. Respectfully submitted by, Sharmaine Abaied Board Clerk THE TOWN OF VIENNA IS COMMITTED TO FULL COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT STANDARDS. TRANSLATION SERVICES, ASSISTANCE OR ACCOMMODATION REQUESTS FROM PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES ARE TO BE REQUESTED NOT LESS THAN 3 WORKING DAYS BEFORE THE DAY OF THE EVENT. PLEASE CALL (703) 255-6304, OR 711 VIRGINIA RELAY SERVICE FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED. Town of Vienna Page 9 Printed on 1/27/2020