Town Government / Town Services / Regulations & Ordinances / Town Information / Town Departments / Mailbox
Minutes
BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
MINUTES
November 15, 2007
The Board of Architectural Review met in regular session in the Council Room of the Vienna Town Hall, 127 Center Street, South, Vienna, Virginia, with Shirley Damon presiding as Chair. The following members were present: Roy Baldwin, David Lanphear, and Paul Layer. Also present were Linnea E. Fechter, Senior Planner, and Jennifer M. Murphy, Board Clerk. Laine Hyde is absent.
ROLL CALL:
Ms. Murphy called roll. Ms. Hyde is absent.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Mr. Lanphear made a motion to approve the minutes from the October 18, 2007, meeting as submitted. Mr. Layer seconded the motion.
Motion: Lanphear
Second: Baldwin
Carried: 3-0-1
Abstain: Baldwin
ITEM NO. 1:
Request for approval for an alteration to the previously approved pump enclosure located at 226 Maple Avenue, W, (Docket No. BAR-29-06), in the C-1A zoning district; filed by Adrian Rogers, of URS.
Ms. Adrian Rogers of URS was present on behalf of the application. Ms. Rogers stated that they are acting as the consultant for the Shell Oil Company. She stated that they are currently under a directive from the Virginia Department of Environmental Equality (VDEQ) to install a ground water remediation system located at the 226 Maple Avenue, West, site. The Board had previously granted approval to install a 14x8 foot fence enclosure that would screen the remediation equipment at the site. The fence was installed earlier in the year. After a few months of operation it was requested that they expand the existing system but found that they do not have enough space within the existing enclosure. They are back to request expansion of the enclosure to a 24x8 foot enclosure.
Chairwoman Damon stated that as a neighboring business to the subject remediation site she is very distressed by the application. Expansion of the enclosure will require removal of the existing trees at the site. She stated that when the application was first approved the Board questioned whether or not the landscaping would remain. Some shrubbery was to be removed but they were assured by the applicant that the trees would remain. A landscape plan had not been submitted with this application. She asked staff if the equipment that is sitting out in the open at the site is allowed to be there or if it would require a permit. Ms. Fechter answered that it would not require a permit as it is a part of the remediation requirements for the DEQ in order to clean up the site. She asked the applicant once the site is remediated will it be removed. Ms. Rogers answered yes. She stated that once the enclosure has been built the equipment will be moved within the enclosure and out of site.
Chairwoman Damon asked when the equipment would be moved as it could potentially sit there indefinitely. The site is currently a mess and she cannot see expanding the structure, destroying the trees, leaving the equipment out in the drive-thru lane with no proper screening. Ms. Rogers noted that at the initial application request they did receive permission to remove one of the existing trees, which they have done. They placed the fence in the center of the clearing. An expansion of five feet will not require the removal of any more trees and will allow for five feet of expansion on either side of the site. They will only have to perform minor pruning to the existing trees. The two blue vessels that Chairwoman Damon referred to, will be moved from the driveway into the system enclosure once the expansion takes place. Their goal is to have all of the equipment moved into the enclosure so that it won’t be an eyesore. Chairwoman Damon stated, having walked the site, she could not see how the expansion won’t destroy the trees. Ms. Rogers explained that the concrete slab is only three inches below and three inches above the grade surface so that they will not interfere with the root system of the trees. Chairwoman Damon stated that regardless the root structure will be affected.
Mr. Baldwin stated that the reason for the expansion is due to a request to increase their capacity. He asked if it is a requirement of a governmental agency. Ms. Rogers answered yes, the Virginia Department of Environmental Equality. Mr. Baldwin commented that it did seem like a lot of equipment as there are five primaries and four back-ups shown on the rendering. He asked for clarification on the function of a “primary” versus a “back-up.” Ms. Rogers explained that they are carbon treatment systems for the ground water remediation system. There is a primary system where water is continuously being pumped through, treated, and then discharged to the storm sewer per a permit with the VDEQ. There is a back-up to kick-in in the event there are periods of a high ground water table or a rain event. The back-up pumps come into service to ensure that there is continued ground water remediation.
Mr. Baldwin asked if an arborist has been consulted regarding the effects on the surrounding trees when expanding the slab. Ms. Rogers answered no, explaining that during the instillation of the original concrete slab it was noticed that the root system of the existing trees were more than three inches below the subsurface. She noted on the rendering where the concrete slab will jut-up more above ground versus below ground. She stated that they found that it will be good to follow suite by expanding it along the same lines limiting impact upon the subsurface.
Chairwoman Damon reiterated her feelings that the root system would definitely be affected if they were to expand towards the trunks of the trees. They have to discuss the matter because the neighboring gas station has been polluting the river that runs beneath the Town. Ms. Rogers stated that it has affected the ground water and not the surface water. Chairwoman Damon asked how they can stop the gas station from polluting the ground water. Ms. Rogers answered that they are currently under a directive from the VDEQ. They have a current corrective action plan in place for cleaning up the ground water. The system at this location is one aspect of that plan. They are also taking corrective measures on the gas station itself. Chairwoman Damon stated that she has noticed other vehicle pumping equipment because it is parked at an access point to her business. She wondered how long the gas station has been polluting the underground waters and asked what is going on. Ms. Rogers explained that there has been a gas station at the location for well over thirty to forty years. The contamination that they are dealing with is historic. With the new laws and regulations the Shell Service Station has testing requirements on a monthly, quarterly, and annual basis that has to be submitted to the VDEQ. This is being done in order to minimize any future or current impacts to the ground water. They can only estimate the time frame but it is not until they start performing remediation and recovery that they can determine the length of time for clean-up. Chairwoman Damon stated that they are affecting the neighboring businesses.
Mr. Layer asked if the trees that are there will not be taken down. Ms. Rogers answered yes. Mr. Layer asked if they are expanding approximately five feet to the right and left directions of what is shown in the photograph. Ms. Rogers answered yes. Mr. Layer asked if it will be of the same material. Ms. Rogers answered yes. Mr. Layer asked if the intent is to move all of the equipment into the enclosure so that they will not be visible. Ms. Rogers answered yes.
Mr. Lanphear stated that he did not have any questions as it looked as though it is the only option to address remediation, meeting the requirements. The only benefit will be that all equipment will be moved into the enclosure.
There being no further questions a motion was in order.
Mr. Baldwin made a motion that the request for approval for an alteration to the previously approved pump enclosure located at 226 Maple Avenue, W, (Docket No. BAR-29-06), be approved with the condition that the new enclosure will be properly screened from its neighbors, including any remedial action that is necessary if trees are harmed and require removal as a result of the expansion.
Motion: Baldwin
Second: Layer
Carried: 3-1
Nay: Damon
ITEM NO. 2:
Request for approval of a Master Sign Plan for Park Plaza located at 139-143 Park Street, SE, (Docket No. BAR-92-07), in the C-1 Local Commercial and the T Transition zoning districts; filed by Geoffrey Lewis, of DBI Architects, Inc.
Mr. Geoffrey Lewis of DBI Architects, Inc. was present on behalf of the application. Mr. Lewis stated that the shopping center is undergoing a renovation and addition to the site. The existing signage is dated and has differing letter styles. They would like to unify the center with a master sign plan. The signage would have a traditional look by keeping it very simple with a slight contrast to the vinyl. The majority would be back-lit signs with formed aluminum decorative edging in dark green. They will use a traditional font in Times Roman so that all of the signage will have a consistent look. A sample of materials and colors was passed around for review for the signage that will be located in the Transitional zone of the shopping center. Mr. Lewis explained that according to the Town Code, the tenants located in the Transitional zone will have stricter limitations as to the size of a sign that they can have on the business. There will be three signs located between each of the windows. The signs will be located at eye level on the building at 1x2 feet is size.
Chairwoman Damon asked if the one on the end would also be placed at a seven foot level to match the other two signs located in the Transitional zone. Mr. Lewis answered yes. Chairwoman Damon stated that the new construction is very attractive and congratulated the Architect on their efforts.
Mr. Lanphear agreed that the shopping center looks great, stating that it will greatly improve that section of Park Street, SE. He asked if the illumination of the signs had to be less than 100 watts. Ms. Fechter answered that limitation is only in the Transitional zone. Mr. Lewis stated that the 1x2 foot signs will have one lamp that is no brighter than a 100 watt bulb. The rest of the signs will have three lamps, which will be a bit brighter. Mr. Lanphear asked if there will be a total of three signs located within the Transitional zone. Mr. Lewis answered that there are two signs. The third sign on the end will be located in the Commercial zone. For uniformity purposes they have chosen to match it to the smaller signs. Ms. Fechter asked how many tenant slots will be located in the Transitional zone. Mr. Lewis answered that they are anticipating a maximum of two tenants. Ms. Fechter explained that each business will be allowed to have one of the nameplates located within the Transitional. Mr. Lewis thought that Cuppett’s Performing Dance Studio will be taking over one of the tenant spaces.
Mr. Baldwin commended the applicant on their design of the shopping center, stating that it is a great improvement from what was there before. He asked staff if the applicant had to get approval for the aesthetic improvements made to the shopping center. Ms. Fechter answered yes, stating that everything was granted approval by the Board in either 2006 or the beginning of 2007. She explained that the only element remaining for approval was the signage, which is why they are seeking approval of a master sign plan. Mr. Baldwin stated that it did seem odd that the unit located on far left of the shopping center cannot have a sign the same size as the other tenants. He encouraged the applicant in seeking variance to match their sign to the other signs in the shopping center. The other signs that they are proposing seem to be fine.
Chairwoman Damon stated that the Town Council would have to amend the Town Code in order to grant approval to the smaller sign. Ms. Fechter stated that in the event that the applicant wanted a variance they would have to prove a land use hardship to the Board of Zoning Appeals. She explained that the issue has already been explored and that the Zoning Administrator, Mr. Greg Hembree is most comfortable with what is being proposed.
Mr. Layer asked for additional information regarding the lumens rating of the signs located within the commercial zone. Mr. Lewis answered that each sign will have three bulbs. He could not say how bright they will be. The fluorescent lamps give off approximately 60/70 watts, which should be of a similar light level to what was previously there.
There being no further questions a motion was in order.
Mr. Layer made a motion that the request for approval of a Master Sign Plan for Park Plaza located at 139-143 Park Street, SE, (Docket No. BAR-92-07), be approved with the stipulation that the Plexiglas will be a minimum of 3/16” for durability purposes.
Motion: Layer
Second: Lanphear
Carried: 4-0
ITEM NO. 3:
Request for approval of exterior modifications to the Westwood Country Club swimming pool filter room shelter located at 800 Maple Avenue, E, (Docket No. BAR-93-07), in the RS-16 Single Family zoning district; filed by Bill Pfunder, of World Pool Server, Inc.
Mr. Bill Pfunder representing the application was present to speak. Mr. Pfunder stated that he is the owner of the swimming pool company that takes care of the swimming pool at the Westwood Country Club. The filter room has been in existence for well over forty years. As a result it is falling apart so that they would like to replace it. A sample of materials was passed around for the Board to review.
Chairwoman Damon asked if they will treat the wood. Mr. Pfunder answered that they will paint the structure gray to match the existing facility. Chairwoman Damon stated that the Board needs to know the exact shade of gray. Additional discussion followed regarding the proposed shade of gray.
There being no further questions a motion was in order.
Mr. Baldwin made a motion that the request for approval of exterior modifications to the Westwood Country Club swimming pool filter room shelter located at 800 Maple Avenue, E, (Docket No. BAR-93-07), be approved as submitted.
Motion: Baldwin
Second: Layer
Carried: 4-0
ITEM NO. 4:
Request for approval of signage for Navy Federal Annex located at 1007 Electric Avenue, SE, (Docket No. BAR-94-07), in the CMP Industrial Park zoning district; filed by George Eichert, of Navy Federal Credit Union.
Mr. George Eichert, Facility Director at Navy Federal Credit Union was present to speak. Mr. Eichert stated they currently have signs located at the four main entrances to the campuses. They are similar in style to what is being proposed. The sign will be for their annex building, which is located across the street. The proposed sign will match in height, color, and lettering to the existing signage at the campus.
Chairwoman Damon asked if it will be any different to the other signs located at the complex. Mr. Eichert answered no, stating that it will be exactly the same. Mr. Eichert passed around updated renderings, which include proposed landscaping. Chairwoman Damon asked if the landscaping is a part of the proposal. Mr. Eichert answered yes.
Mr. Baldwin asked about the layout of the site. Mr. Eichert explained the layout of the campus in comparison to Follin Lane and Electric Avenue, SE. He explained that there is a bend in the road so that the entrance does come upon the driver quickly. A sign indicating the entrance will be a help their customers.
Mr. Layer asked if the sign will be illuminated. Mr. Eichert answered no.
There being no further questions a motion was in order.
Mr. Layer made a motion that the request for approval of signage for Navy Federal Annex located at 1007 Electric Avenue, SE, (Docket No. BAR-94-07), be approved to include the proposed landscaping.
Motion: Layer
Second: Lanphear
Carried: 4-0
ITEM NO. 5:
Request for approval of signage for AT&T located at 211 Maple Avenue, E, (Docket No. BAR-95-07), in the C-2 General Commercial zoning district; filed by Ron Hamed, of Econo Signs.
Mr. Ron Hamed of Econo Signs, representing the application approached to present. Mr. Hamed stated that Cingular is changing over to AT&T and therefore requires changing out their signs.
Chairwoman Damon noted that the business is located in a shopping center where they have allowed for some individuality to the signage but they have limited the colors that can be used at the shopping center. They are trying to maintain some uniformity to the colors that are used on the signs. As a result, what is being requested is not in keeping with the look of the shopping center. She understands that they want to use the original colors on the logo but it does not match with the existing colors of the shopping center.
Staff passed around renderings of the approved colors and materials for the shopping center. Ms. Fechter noted that Mr. Hamed was also the representative for Ink Stop also located in the same shopping center. She explained that AT&T, formerly Cingular, would utilize the same colors that Chairwoman Damon refers to. Mr. Hamed stated that unfortunately he was given AT&T colors to present. Chairwoman Damon stated that the store has changed over quite a bit and she, personally, cannot approve a sign that will introduce new colors to their original concept for the shopping center.
Mr. Baldwin asked for the colors on the sign that is located there now. Ms. Fechter answered that it is all white with silver returns. She explained that they originally applied for a bright orange logo but was turned down by the Board. Mr. Baldwin stated that the proposed sign is somewhat smaller. He asked if it would be possible to go back to the client to request that they substitute colors that match the shopping center colors. Mr. Hamed stated that he would have to discuss it with his clients. He asked if the Board could direct him as to what they want on the sign.
Mr. Layer, holding up a sample of perforated material, asked if the film would cover over the sign. Mr. Hamed answered yes, explaining that it fits over the sign and would only be seen during the daytime. The perforation or holes in the material allows for the light to shine through so that it cannot be seen at night. Additional discussion followed regarding deferring the item as the representative needs to revisit with his client in order to come up with another alternative.
There being no further questions a motion was in order.
Mr. Lanphear made a motion that the request for approval of signage for AT&T located at 211 Maple Avenue, E, (Docket No. BAR-95-07), be deferred until such time the suggestions made by the Board can be taken back to the applicant who can return with options from within the context of the suggestions and/or the existing colors located on the facility.
Motion to Defer: Lanphear
Second: Baldwin
Deferred: 4-0
NEW BUSINESS:
There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 8:52.
Respectfully submitted by,
Jennifer M. Murphy
Board Clerk