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, June 17, 2021 7:30 PM COUNCIL CHAMBERS-VIENNA TOWN HALL The Board of Architectural Review met Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 7:30 pm in the Vienna Town Hall at 127 Center St S. and Via Zoom Webinar. Chairman Roy Baldwin, Michael Cheselka, Patty Hanley, Paul Layer, and Linda van Doorn were present participating via Zoom. Planner Andrea West and Board Clerk Sharmaine Abaied were present in Town Hall. Board of Architectural Review - Continuity of Government Resolution for Continuity of Government 2nd: Mr. Layer Ayes: Ms. van Doorn, Mr. Layer, Mr. Baldwin, Mr. Cheselka, and Ms. Hanley Roll Call Ms. van Doorn, Mr. Layer, Mr. Baldwin, Mr. Cheselka and Ms. Hanley were present. Approval of the Minutes: Meeting Minutes: accepted with as submitted. Public Hearing 245 Maple Ave W - Exterior Modification Revision - Vienna Market Item No. 1: Request for a revised approval for Vienna Market located at 245 Maple Avenue W., Docket No. PF-21-19-BAR (IDT No. 413426), in the MAC Maple Avenue Commercial Zone zoning district; filed by Gregory O'Neill of Northfield Construction and Development. Mr. Doug D’Alexander was present to represent the application. He stated they were working on As Built issues in conjunction with the originally approved plan. Starting with the Church Street side Mr. D’Alexander stated the sidewalks would be brick pavers whereas they original rendering did not indicate that. The retaining wall did not need to go back to the drive aisle on the corner of Pleasant and Church and now shows a shorter wall. Mr. Layer asked which entrance location Mr. D’Alexander was speaking of. Mr. D’Alexander stated it was the Corner of Church and Pleasant across from Councilman Anderson’s home. Town of Vienna Page 1 Printed on 8/30/2021 Board of Architectural Review Meeting Minutes June 17, 2021 Mr. D’Alexander moved to the bank side of Church St stating there was railing being added with the column lines finishing above the top of wall to create an actual column. Next, the upper area to the right of the public art will have a brick wall 5 feet in front for the enclosed, heated elevator vestibule. In the ceiling above the first townhouse there are sanitary, water, and stormwater coming in needing covered and conditioned which was another reason for pulling the wall forward. The front the transition from the Maple Ave sidewalk and building, the grade had to be brought 30 feet further right (towards the elevator) to be able to step into the project at grade. What appears to be a 6th commercial bay is actually an entrance to the elevator vestibule. Mr. D’Alexander also pointed out the glass doors that would be matching and allow a lot of light. The trash enclosure was corrected on the rendering as the original was not scaled properly. Mr. D’Alexander stated there had been a submission for the public art area of 14 feet tall and 28 feet long. He concluded stating a tree that had been omitted in the rendering would remain as it was part of the approved landscape plan. Ms. van Doorn inquired about the trash enclosure. Mr. D’Alexander stated it met all of the requirements for the zone. Mr. Layer asked if the grade of the building was level until it reached the second bay. Mr. D’Alexander stated it wasn’t level, but a slight slope until the 2nd bay moving into a smooth transition. The desired goal is for it to be wide allowing it to feel open. Mr. Layer then asked about the entrance coming from Pleasant Street and if the sidewalk elevation at Maple and the pedestrian way were the same. Mr. D’Alexander stated at the entrance from Pleasant, the grade was 4.5 to 5 feet at store front grade requiring several steps to reach the first bay. He then gave a description of being about chest high for a person talking on the street. Mr. Layer asked if there was any difference from the first and second drawings, and Mr. D’Alexander stated there was no change in grade from the two renderings. Mr. Layer asked what the brown material was for the trash enclosure. Mr. Greg O’Neil, with the construction company, stated they had two proposed types of material; aluminum slats, or wood. The aluminum slats color would not match as well as the wood as it could be stained to match. Mr. Layer asked if they were open or closed slats. Mr. O’Neil stated they were closed. Mr. Layer asked if they would open at the top, Mr. O’Neil stated there would be some opening at the top for the gate to properly open in and out. There was some discussion regarding the location of the location of the trash enclosure. Mr. Layer suggested the aluminum would give some longevity and lower maintenance, he then asked for their preference. Mr. O’Neil stated his preference was wood, but was amenable to the aluminum although it is in lower supply. Mr. Layer then asked if a composite material would work. Mr. O’Neil stated he would look into the use of composite with commercial gates. There was continued discussion regarding the type of material to be used for the trash enclosure. Ms. Hanley asked about the steps going into the retail sidewalk and they would coordinate on the left and the right. Ms. Hanley asked if the railing would match on the left hand and right hand side. Mr. D’Alexander stated they would be the same material. Ms. Hanley asked about the connection of the sidewalk to the retail sidewalk and if there was a grade deviation in the spot where the railing continues. Mr. D’Alexander stated it was not high enough to require railing, but that it was for continuity. Mr. Baldwin asked if the railing needed to be there and Mr. D’Alexander stated it did not per code, but it was there for continuity. There was continued discussion regarding the railing. Mr. Baldwin asked about the color of the pavers. Ms. West asked if they were pavers in the right of way. Mr. D’Alexander stated they were. Ms. West stated they would be the standard town pavers and would be approved by the Department of Public Works. Mr. Town of Vienna Page 2 Printed on 8/30/2021 Board of Architectural Review Meeting Minutes June 17, 2021 Baldwin asked about the adding of bulkhead with brick veneer under townhome promenade to have conditioned space. He asked if that was for air conditioned space. Mr. D’Alexander stated it would be heated space that was to the right of the future art. Mr. Baldwin asked if the 10-15 foot long space next to the proposed art was considered for additional public art or a sign. Mr. D’Alexander stated it was not. Mr. Baldwin stated he felt it was very monolithic and asked that it be considered for signage or public art to break up the monotony. Mr. Baldiwn asked staff if the site plan modifications would hinder the Board from an approval and Ms. West stated no. Mr. Baldwin inquired about the dimensions of the dumpster enclosure. Mr. O’Neil stated the size was 20 feet long, with a height of 10 feet. Mr. Baldwin also asked about the color change of material in the retaining wall from masonry block to brick. Mr. O’Neil stated it would be the approved color matching the commercial and retail space. Mr. Cheselka asked about the trash enclosure in relation to the public art as it appeared the public art area had been reduced. Mr. D’Alexander and Mr. O’Neil stated it was 28 foot long by 13 foot tall public art. Ms. Hanley stated the townhomes to the far left and right show, in the original rendering, a second cornice at the top with rustication coming up half-way to the bay window, but the new rendering shows changes. Ms. Hanley asked if they were changes and Mr. D’Alexander stated the NV Homes side was not making any changes. Ms. West stated there had been a previous revision that had gone before the Board and been approved, but that if there were any additional changes NV Homes would be required to come back before the Board. Mr. Layer asked if the Board could approve with both dumpster enclosure materials with a confirmation later. Ms. West stated that would be appropriate as there was uncertainty around the availability of material. Ms. Hanley asked about the removal of the two planters when the stairs were removed and if that was part of the application. Ms. West stated, the new layout would be the approved layout. Ms. Hanley asked if the old modification would no longer be a requirement. Ms. West stated the old modification would not need to be referenced. Mr. Layer made a motion to approve as submitted with the provision that two materials for the dumpster enclosure would be approved. The first material, as suggested by the applicant, aluminum as presented at the meeting and a composite material of similar construction and design. There would need to be a follow up as to the color matching. Motion: Mr. Layer Second: Ms. Hanley Ayes: Ms. van Doorn, Mr. Layer, Mr. Baldwin, Mr. Cheselka, and Ms. Hanley 5 Ayes, 0 Nays 211 Center St S.- Exterior Modification - Bowman House Item No. 2: Request for approval of a new roof, for the Bowman House, located at 211 Center Street S., Docket No. PF-16-21-BAR (IDT No. 551475), in the RM-2 zoning district, filled by Leon Evans of the Town of Vienna Department of Parks and Recreation. Mr. Leon Evans was present to represent the application. Mr. Evans stated they hired an architect to check the roof and it was discovered that there were issues. The roof project has two phases: correction of the structural deficiencies, and replace the roof (matching Town of Vienna Page 3 Printed on 8/30/2021 Board of Architectural Review Meeting Minutes June 17, 2021 the police station), gutters, and downspouts. Mr. Layer asked if the matching of the roof was the new police department, and Mr. Evans said that was correct, same roof, and same color. Mr. Layer asked if the downspout colors would be matching. Mr. Evans stated that was correct. Mr. Layer stated may be a better color for the downspouts. Mr. Evans said they could make that modification. Ms. Hanley stated she was concerned with the colors for the Bowman House and Police Station matching to much as the Bowman House is a historic building and the roofs during that time period were green or silvery gray roofs. Ms. Hanley also stated commercial metal seamed roofs have a thicker seam and stated a variation could make it less significant while still coordinating with the police station. Ms. Hanley asked if there had been anything explored to aid in preventing icicles. Mr. Evans stated the new roof would eliminate that issue at the front of the Bowman House. Mr. Cheselka asked if the existing was a metal roof, Mr. Evans stated yes. Mr. Cheslka confirmed with Mr. Layer the color white for the downspouts. Mr. Baldwin asked if the roof color chosen would diminish the historic authenticity of the building. Mr. Evans stated the site was not historic and was not part of the historic registry, but that it was a historic building. He stated he would have to find out if it would diminish the historic aspect of the building. Mr. Evans stated they were told they would not have an issue with the type of roof that needed to be put on the building. Mr. Layer asked about the original roof of the building. Ms. Hanley stated she thought it was a tin roof. Mr. Layer stated if the roof had been tin it would have been gray and if it was copper, it would be brown and eventually green and if slate it would be dark gray. Mr. Layer said he felt matching the gray would make sense. Mr. Cheselka agreed stating it may have been the darker gray and matching the police station would give the block a nice feel. Mr. Layer asked what gray was being matched in the pallet. Ms. West stated it looked blue, but that the actual sample from the police department is a lot grayer. Mr. Cheselka made a motion to approve with the proviso that the downspouts be white. Motion: Mr. Cheselka Second: Mr. Layer Ayes: Ms. van Doorn, Mr. Layer, Mr. Baldwin, Mr. Cheselka, and Ms. Hanley 5 Ayes, 0 Nays 804 Tapawingo Rd SW - Exterior Modification Item No. 3: Request for approval new rear roof structure on a townhouse, located at 804 Tapawingo Road SW, Docket No. PF-547504-BAR, in the RTH Townhouse zoning district, filled by David Omary of Biltmore Design Galleria. Mr. James and Mrs. Lorraine Hendry were present to represent the application. Mr. Layer asked if the existing shingles were being matched and Mrs. Hendry stated that was correct. Ms. Hanley asked if the roof would remain open when going past the sliding door or if there would be solid material in that area. Mr. Hendry stated it would be open. Ms. van Doorn asked if there would be any lighting. Mr. Hendry stated the outside light would be moved to the post that supports the new roof. Ms. van Doorn asked if the fixture would be changed and what the lumens and kelvins would be. Mr. Baldwin stated the application said lumens, 820, and kelvins, 3000. Mr. Cheselka stated he felt it was a lot of lumens for a neighborhood and then asked what was behind the building. Mr. Hendry stated there was a creek and vegetation behind them and Mrs. Hendry stated it was a motion detector light. Ms. Hanley asked if it was a security light facing out and up. The Hendry’s stated it would not be on all night and that it would face down and out. Ms. Hanley made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Motion: Ms. Hanley Second: Mr. Cheselka Ayes: Ms. van Doorn, Mr. Layer, Mr. Baldwin, Mr. Cheselka, and Ms. Hanley 5 Ayes, 0 Nays Town of Vienna Page 4 Printed on 8/30/2021 Board of Architectural Review Meeting Minutes June 17, 2021 396 Maple Ave E - Sign - Monarch Custom Homes Item No. 4: Request for approval of a new sign for Monarch Custom Homes, located at 394 Maple Ave E, Docket No. PF-14-21-BAR, in the C-1A Special Commercial zoning district, filed by Michael Flynn, of Allegra. Mr. Michael Flynn was present to represent the application. Mr. Cheselka inquired about the illumination. Mr. Flynn stated it was a pre-existing lightbox that was being refaced and nothing would be changed with the lighting. Mr. Baldwin asked if the lighting would be enough for the new sign as it would be darker than the previous sign, Mr. Flynn said yes. Mr. Cheselka made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Motion: Mr. Cheselka Second: Mr. Layer Ayes: Ms. van Doorn, Mr. Layer, Mr. Baldwin, Mr. Cheselka, and Ms. Hanley 5 Ayes, 0 Nays 301 Maple Ave W - Exterior Modification Item No. 5: Request for approval of antenna install located at 301 Maple Avenue W, Docket No. PF-553042-BAR, in the C-1A Special Commercial zoning district, filed by Katherine Blackwood, Network Building + Consulting. Ms. Katherine Blackwood was present to represent the application. Mr. Layer asked if the color would be gray, Ms. Blackwood stated the antennas are a matte gray finish. Ms. Hanley asked if the existing inoperable antennas would be taken down. Ms. West stated there are limited numbers so they would typically be taken down and replaced with something else. Mr. Baldwin commented that he thought there were more changes being made than what was indicated in the staff report. He asked if there would be any changes that are visible from the street. Ms. West stated the applicant pointed out the equipment in the elevation drawings and the rooftop drawings. The staff report summarized the application as some parts described in the application are not visible. Ms. West asked if the applicant could explain the visual impact. Ms. Blackwood stated the antennas would be visible, two would be removed, and four would be added. Mr. Baldwin asked if they would be visible from Maple Ave and Ms. West stated she did not believe they were on the Maple Ave side. Mr. Baldwin inquired as to the impact of the changes to resident. A picture provided by the applicant was shown. Ms. Blackwood stated the antennas would be decreasing in size from 60 inches tall to 33 inches tall, and they would be a little wider. Ms. van Doorn made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Motion: Ms. van Doorn Second: Mr. Layer Ayes: Ms. van Doorn, Mr. Layer, Mr. Baldwin, Mr. Cheselka, and Ms. Hanley 5 Ayes, 0 Nays Town of Vienna Page 5 Printed on 8/30/2021 Board of Architectural Review Meeting Minutes June 17, 2021 211 Mill St NE - Sign - Dulles Kitchen and Bath No representative was present at the time agenda item 6 was presented. Ms. Hanley made a motion to move the agenda item to the end of the agenda, Mr. Layer seconded the motion with 5 ayes and 0 nays to move the item to the end of the agenda. 800 Maple Ave E - Exterior Modification - Westwood Country Club Item No. 7: Request for approval of exterior modifications for Westwood Country Club located at 800 Maple Ave E, Docket No. PF-559923-BAR, in the RS-16 residential zoning district, filed by Braden Field, of MTFA Architecture. Mr. Braden Field was present to represent the application. Mr. Field stated the application was for replacement of the larger of the two bubbles that houses indoor tennis courts. It would be replaced with a permanent indoor facility connected and accessible through the clubhouse. The building is an engineered metal building. Mr. Field stated a lot of emphasis was put on the East façade, facing the clubhouse. The façade will have stone veneer and ground face masonry units. There are ribbed shadow / skin panels to help break up the building while also breaking down the massing by using two varied colors of green on the building. Ms. van Doorn asked if the Nova Stone was the stone veneer, Mr. Field said yes. Ms. van Doorn asked if it was a true stone. Mr. Field stated it was a true natural stone blend of two stone colors matching the color of the clubhouse building stone. Ms. van Doorn asked if Fade away green was considered as the green colors chosen are very apparent colors. Mr. Field said he wasn’t familiar with that color, but stated that they were limited on the color selection as they are standard panels from the engineered building manufacture. The surrounding trees on the site are primarily Evergreen which was the reason for the green colors chosen as well as the roof color which is green as well. Mr. Cheselka stated the color chosen would not fade as much with the ultra violet effects on the metal. Ms. Hanley stated going with the standard colors would be better so the panels are not painted in the field. Mr. Layer asked to see elevations of what the members would see. Elevations were brought up, and Mr. Field stated that members on the golf course may be able the only members who would be able to see the exterior of the building. Mr. Layer asked what the existing roofs colors were; Mr. Field stated it was a gray asphalt roof shingle. Mr. Layer stated the new building’s roof and existing building’s roof would not blend and the green on top of the building would create a very heavy image. Mr. Layer continued stating how he felt the material of the new building conflicts with the existing clubhouse. Mr. Layer asked what material was under the deck on the exiting pool house. Mr. Field stated it was hard-panel with stone on the north face, facing the new tennis building. Mr. Layer inquired about the member’s perspective of the new building. Mr. Field stated the membership and club standpoint, they were happy with the elevation. Mr. Layer asked about landscaping. Mr. Field stated landscaping was added on the south face where the parking lot is against it to breakdown the scale of the building. The building is against the exiting flood plain so they were limited on what could be done on the other faces of the building. Mr. Layer asked if staff had reviewed the plan. Ms. West stated it had gone through the site plan process and the Board meeting was at the end of the site plan process. Mr. Layer asked what the white rectangles were, Mr. Field stated they were slightly recessed windows, but instead of glass they are a translucent polycarbonate material. Mr. Layer stated he was struggling with the application as it was large and very different from the existing materials at that facility. Mr. Layer asked if any vegetation can be planted in the floodplain. Mr. Layer inquired about the roof colors again and Mr. Field stated that with the options presented, Town of Vienna Page 6 Printed on 8/30/2021 Board of Architectural Review Meeting Minutes June 17, 2021 the darker green would tie together better as a back drop building although it won’t match the other buildings. Ms. Hanley stated that according to Ms. Horner, town’s technical lead on flood plain, certain materials may be planted in the flood plain. Ms. Hanley stated the massing is a bit overwhelming, and there may be some missed opportunities to disguise the massive structure, but it was not visible from the street. Mr. Baldwin asked about signs for the buildings. Mr. Field stated there was nothing anticipated for building mounted signage. Mr. Layer stated, he was used to buildings of that size coming to the Board at a work session giving some input on the proposal for the development of a project. Ms. West stated a work session was not recommended by staff, to which Mr. Layer stated it was a missed opportunity and that he would not be able to vote for the project. Ms. van Doorn asked if a lighter color would make it appear less massive. She also asked if enclosing the tennis courts gives less flexibility. Mr. Field stated the roof line and height are limited by allowable building height as well as clearance guidelines for indoor tennis. Ms. van Doorn made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Motion: Ms. van Doorn Second: Mr. Cheselka Ayes: Ms. van Doorn, Mr. Baldwin, Mr. Cheselka, and Ms. Hanley Nays: Mr. Layer 4 Ayes, 1 Nays Ms. Hanley offered a post approval work session with the applicant to aide in reducing the masing 333 Maple Ave E - Sign - Amity Nail Spa Item No. 8: Request for approval of a replacement sign panel for Amity Nail Spa, located at 333 Maple Avenue E., Docket No. PF- 557318-BAR, in the C-2 General Commercial zoning district, filed by William Rosenberg, of Econo Sign Inc. Mr. William Rosenberg was present to represent the application. Mr. Rosenberg stated it was a replacement / reface. Mr. Cheselka made a motion to approve as submitted Motion: Mr. Cheselka Second: Ms. Hanley Ayes: Ms. van Doorn, Mr. Layer, Mr. Baldwin, Mr. Cheselka, and Ms. Hanley 5 Ayes, 0 Nays Item No. 6: Request for approval of a sign for Dulles Kitchen and Bath, located at 211 Mill St NE, Docket No. PF- 555101-BAR, in the CM Limited Industrial zoning district, filed by Mustafa Ozdemir of Dulles Kitchen & Bath. No one was present to represent the application. Mr. Baldwin stated he did have questions for the application. Mr. Layer stated he would prefer to the item. Town of Vienna Page 7 Printed on 8/30/2021 Board of Architectural Review Meeting Minutes June 17, 2021 Motion: Mr. Layer Second: Ms. Hanley Ayes: Ms. van Doorn, Mr. Layer, Mr. Baldwin, Mr. Cheselka, and Ms. Hanley 5 Ayes, 0 Nays Meeting Adjournment Mr. Baldwin inquired as to when the Board members were allowed to meet in person. Ms. West stated they could start coming in person, but staff would need to know in advance to be able to prepare for the meeting. There was continued discussion regarding the ability to meet in person. The Board also discussed having larger projects come to the prior to the meeting. Ms. West stated at any point before the decision, the Board could make recommendations. Ms. Hanley mentioned the sign at Wawa that had peeling paint asking if staff could speak with Wawa to fix the sign. Motion to adjourn: Mr. Cheselka Second: Ms. Hanley With no objections the meeting adjourned at 9:34 Respectfully Submitted, 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 8 Printed on 8/30/2021