Opening Remarks.

Determination of a quorum.
Members

Determination that public notice requirements have been met.

Approval of Agenda

Review of Minutes - March 10, 2003.

Applications

1. Bobbi Baker - New construction at 109 Lafayette Boulevard
2. Hope Lyon - Addition at 201 Caroline Street
3. Carriage Park, Inc. - Exterior alterations and an addition at 204 Fauquier Street
4. Earle M. Copp, III - Fence at 1509 Caroline Street
5. Pamela and Jeffrey Graham - Exterior alterations at 1114 Charles Street
6. Jim Goetz -- Exterior alterations at 501 Caroline Street

Other Business
1. Informal review - 402 Hanover Street
2. Transmittal of Planning Commission agenda
3. Update on Circuit Court House
4. Update on Certified Local Government status
5. Update on petition to Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development for building code amendment
6. Transmittal of information on Germania Mills site (potential homeless shelter)
7. Transmittal of section of draft Preservation Plan - Historic Context

Agenda Item #1
TO: Architectural Review Board
FROM: Erik F. Nelson, Senior Planner
DATE: April 2, 2003
RE: 109 Lafayette Boulevard - New Construction
arb slide

Bobbi Baker returns to request a Certificate of Appropriateness for new construction at 109 Lafayette Boulevard. This case was heard in May 2002. At that time, the Board approved the submitted drawings, but with the condition that additional information would be provided for specific details. The attached elevation is approved, but provided as reference. The additional drawings are submitted to complete this process for the following items:

Because of the constrained project time, City staff has placed this item on the ARB agenda for April, without additional documentation. As soon as architectural drawings are available for the exterior alterations, they will be forwarded to the Board. Thank you for your indulgence in this matter.

Front entrance and steps - The approved front door is a 3-0 x 6-8 wood door. Trim details are shown in an attached drawing. The Board requested details on the 12 inch inset (which is not shown). The applicant has stated that the inset will have panels that match the configuration of the front door panels. Also shown are the front steps with metal railings.

Cornice - The cornice trim is shown on an attached drawing. The soffit will extend slightly less than six inches beyond the crown molding, to accommodate vents.

Trim - Window trim and headers are shown on an attached drawing.

Staff finds the proposed details to be architecturally compatible with the historic aspects of the Historic District and recommends approval.
Front Elevation
Side Elevation
baluster example
Door and window architrave
exterior moldings
exterior cornice
front porch drawing

Agenda Item #2
TO: Architectural Review Board
FROM: Erik F. Nelson, Senior Planner
DATE: April 2, 2003
RE: 201 Caroline Street - Addition
arb slide

Hope Lyon requests an amendment to the Certificates of Appropriateness issued for construction of an addition, for the following items:

Scale and Massing: Instead of incorporating a turret in the addition, the applicant proposes to bring the roof directly back to the rear bay. This modification reduces the complexity of the roof shape which is certainly consistent with the roof of the historic structure.

Fenestration - While the rear elevation will remain unchanged, the applicant proposes a slightly modified window pattern for the addition's side elevations. The proposed change to the right side consists of an additional second floor window.

The proposed change to the left side consists of replacing a proposed one over one second story window with a large domed window and adding an additional lower story window to create a grouping of three lower story windows.

No other approved items are proposed to be modified.

Staff finds the proposed modifications to be architecturally compatible with the historic aspects of the Historic District and recommends approval of the submitted elevational drawing (03/05/03).
West Elevation
North Elevation
East Elevation
South Elevation
cornice and rake detail
North Elevation, new construction
South Elevation, new construction

Agenda Item #3
TO: Architectural Review Board
FROM: Erik F. Nelson, Senior Planner
DATE: April 2, 2003
RE: 204 Fauquier Street - Exterior Alterations and Addition
arb slide, principal elevation
arb slide, oblique, left side
arb slide, right elevation

Carriage Park, Inc. returns to request a Certificate of Appropriateness for exterior alterations and an addition at 204 Fauquier Street. A 1984 architectural survey has dated this frame dwelling to c.1880-1900.
The applicant proposes to remove the one-story addition and construct a two-story addition. This application should be reviewed in the following sequence:

Site Planning: The historic building has a setback of 5.9 feet on the east side and 1.6 feet on the west side. The proposed addition will be stepped in on both sides, to help differentiate the new construction from the old as well as to provide a three foot setback on the west elevation that meets fire code requirements. A site plan is on file that shows the historic house in relation to the property lines. A new site plan with the addition shown on this rectangular lot is not thought to be needed since a floor plan has been provided that shows the features proposed to be demolished as well as a footprint of the proposed addition. A fence is not being requested at this time.

Scale and Massing: The proposed addition will be stepped in on both sides, to break up the massing of the structure. It will extend 24 feet to the rear. The roof on the addition will extend the existing end gable roof. The existing chimneys will be repaired and retained.

Roof: The new roof will be an extension of the existing gable roof.

Windows: The historic windows of the original structure are proposed to be repaired and retained. These historic windows specifically include all of the front windows as well as the single window on the right side elevation. The windows in the earlier (two-story) addition are proposed to be used to refurbish individual components of the windows that will be retained. Based on remnants of the old framing still visible on the building interior, these windows appear to have been originally located on the rear elevation of the house.
The first-floor windows on the left side of the house date to a makeshift renovation of this building, probably during the 1980s. New wood windows are proposed to be installed on the rear portion of the existing building as shown in the submitted drawings. On the right side of the house (which is visible to Princess Anne Street) these new windows will have a two over two configuration consistent with the historic windows. The windows in the addition will have a four over four configuration. On the left side of the house, a large combination window is proposed to replace the low quality windows and the poorly installed side entrance (dating to the 1980s). This large window will provide sunlight into a new kitchen and breakfast nook as well as break up the stark side of this house that was of concern to one of the neighbors at the March 10 public hearing.
The applicant also proposes to replace the 1980s hexagonal window with a more appropriate square window. In addition, the applicant proposes to install a matching square window for the second story, to restore light to the interior stairway (the original rear window that admitted light to the stairs was removed years ago when the second story earlier addition was built). A window schedule and window specs are attached. Floor plans are also attached to show how the proposed window alterations relate to the use of the building.

Doors: As noted under Windows, the side door in the earlier addition will be removed and sided over. A set of new doors will be installed in the rear elevation of the rear addition, as shown on submitted documentation.

Exterior Architectural Elements: A set of steps will be constructed at the rear door. The cornice and trim on the new addition will match the existing. Differentiation between the new and the old will be evident through the new windows and stepped back massing.

Materials: The roof will be standing seam metal. The aluminum siding on the historic building will be removed and the underlying wood siding repaired as necessary. Hardi-plank is proposed for the new addition. The new foundation will be brick. The existing brick foundation will be repaired with the appropriate mortar mix.

This application should also be reviewed in the context of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards as follows:
1. The property will be returned to its original use as a single family detached dwelling (the old service panels suggest this building had been used as three apartments).

2. The historic materials of the original structure are proposed to be repaired and retained. The aluminum siding is considered to be neither historic nor character defining.

3. Proposed alterations to the historic building will not create a false sense of historical development. Instead, they will undo poorly executed work done in the 1980s as well as provide materials for restoration of components (windows) of the original building.

4. The aluminum siding that covers the historic wood siding is detrimental to the structure because it sets up a false vapor barrier. Neither the rear addition nor the aluminum siding are considered to have attained historic significance in their own right and removal is considered justified.

5. The details of the historic dwelling will be preserved.

6. The deteriorated features of the original house will be repaired.

7. Not applicable.

8. Not applicable.

9. The new addition will not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The two new windows on the right side elevation will match the existing windows yet one will have a slight variation (arched top) to show the change. The new windows on the left side elevation will replace poor quality 1980s windows and a makeshift door. The new window on the second story will restore natural light to the interior stairway. The second story window on this elevation is not character defining, but rather an original window reused from the main house when this earlier second story addition was constructed.

10.The proposed addition will not impair the essential form and integrity of the historic structure.

Staff finds the proposed addition and alterations to be architecturally compatible with the historic aspects of the Historic District and recommends approval.

North Elevation
East and West Gables existing condition
First Floor Plan existing
Second Floor Plan existing
Proposed West Gable Elevation
Proposed East Gable Elevation
Proposed North and South Elevations
Window Treatments
Window Specifications (pdf file)
Proposed First Floor Plan
Proposed Second Floor Plan

Paul O'Neill Statement read into record at 14 April 2003 meeting.

Agenda Item #4
TO: Architectural Review Board
FROM: Erik F. Nelson, Senior Planner
DATE: April 2, 2003
RE: 1509 Caroline Street - Fence
arb slide, oblique, left side
arb slide, oblique, right side

Earle M. Copp III requests a Certificate of Appropriateness for a fence at 1509 Caroline Street. A 1984 architectural survey has dated this dwelling to 1938.
The applicant proposes to enclose his rear yard with a four picket fence (as shown on an attached plat and drawing). There will be an eight foot vehicle gate and a four foot walk-through gate cut into the fence. These gates will match the fence exactly so that when the gates are closed the view will be of a continuous fence. The fence material will be pressure treated wood, which will be stained white.

Staff finds the proposed fence to be architecturally compatible with the historic aspects of the Historic District and recommends approval of the fence as shown on submitted documentation.
fence detail
Plat showing fence location

Agenda Item #5
TO: Architectural Review Board
FROM: Erik F. Nelson, Senior Planner
DATE: April 4, 2003
RE: 1114 Charles Street - Exterior Alterations
arb slide, oblique, principal elevation
arb slide, oblique, rear facade

Pamela and Jeffrey Graham request a Certificate of Appropriateness for exterior alterations at 1114 Charles Street. According to research conducted by the Historic Fredericksburg Foundation, a single story structure was built on this site in 1785. A two story structure can be documented to at least 1857.
The applicants propose to close in a rear porch and extend it six feet toward the side, to accommodate a new kitchen. This application should be considered in the following sequence:
Site Planning - New construction will extend six feet to the side of the. house, leaving the remaining 13 feet as a setback. The attached plat, with the addition drawn in, shows how this extension will extend into the sideyard.
Scale and Massing - The existing shed roof will remain in place and the open area below it closed in. A gable roof will extend over the new addition.
Roof - A side gable roof will extend the existing shed roof.
Windows - The applicant will install thermal paned Pella windows, with exterior and interior muntins. There are discrepancies between the floor plan and the elevational drawings, which the applicant has been requested to clarify.
Doorways - A single exterior door is shown on the rear elevation. Additional details are not yet available.
Exterior Architectural Elements - There are few details in this simple addition. The construction will be tight, though, because the necessary head room will be attained under the existing roof. The cornice will have a 1 x 6 inch soffit, with venting.
Materials - The walls of the addition will be clad in wood siding that matches the existing. The roof will remain wood shingles. The foundation will be brick,
Miscellaneous Details - The trim will match the existing.
This case should also be reviewed within the context of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, as follows:
1. The property will remain in residential use.
2. Historic materials that characterize this property will not be removed.
3. The proposed addition will have new windows and doors that will identify this work as 21s' century construction, thus avoiding a fake sense of historical development.
4. The existing rear addition is not thought to have attained historic significance in its own right that would preclude the proposed work.
5. The distinctive features that characterize this property will be preserved.
6. Not applicable.
7. Not applicable.
8. Not applicable.
9. The proposed addition will not destroy historic materials that characterize the property.
10.The proposed addition will not impair the essential form and integrity of the historic property.

Staff is unable to make a recommendation without the additional requested details. The Board is under no obligation to render a decision until it has been afforded sufficient time to examine and evaluate all applicable documentation.
East Elevation existing
Lot Plan with proposed addition
South Elevation of Proposed Kitchen
North Elevation of Proposed Kitchen
Plan of Proposed Kitchen
East Elevation of Proposed Kitchen

Agenda Item #5
TO: Architectural Review Board
FROM: Erik F. Nelson, Senior Planner
DATE: April 7, 2003
RE: 1114 Charles Street - Additional Information
arb slide, oblique, right side
arb slide, principal elevation

Steve Spratt has provided additional details for the work proposed to be accomplished at 1114 Charles Street. The floor plan is corrected to show the proposed window openings. A front elevation and a description of the windows are also provided.
North Elevation of Proposed Kitchen-revised
Plan of Proposed Kitchen-revised
Specifications of proposed windows

Agenda Item #6
TO: Architectural Review Board
FROM: Erik F. Nelson, Senior Planner
DATE: April 3, 2003
RE: 501 Caroline Street - Exterior Alterations

Jim Goetz requests a Certificate of Appropriateness for exterior alterations at 501 Caroline Street. The Historic Fredericksburg Foundation has dated this building to 1805. Russell Wright, in his 1972 Preservation Plan, however, indicated this house was an eighteenth century building. A 1937 report by the Works Progress Administration (WPA) cites a 1761 construction date. While an accurate period of construction awaits more concerted research, restoration is proposed to be consistent with an 1885 photo.
The applicant proposes to restore the storefront of this building to allow commercial reuse of the first floor (while retaining residential use on the second and third floors). The National Park Service has provided technical guidance for this endeavor in Preservation Brief 11 (Rehabilitating Historic Storefronts). In this instance, the original storefront no longer exists. There is, however, excellent documentation available to guide a reestablishment of this feature. Attached are copies of two photos, one taken in 1885 and the other in 1927. The Board should note that the first floor had been lowered by 1927, bringing the front door to the same level as the sidewalk. The two storefront windows had also been lowered. The storefront cornice, however, had not been moved. To fill in the opening above the door, someone appears to have installed a three pane window sash. This particular version of the storefront is not proposed to be referenced except for the level of the cornice. Reestablishing the cornice in the appropriate location will bring the facade of this building back into balance with the height of the first floor windows and doors of the adjoining buildings.
The primary reference for restoration will be the 1885 photo. This image shows the original floor height, confirms that the storefront was constructed of wood, and suggests the cornice was not moved when the rest of the storefront was so extensively altered.

The applicant proposes to accomplish the following work:
· Remove the existing façade to a height of 11.75 feet. The front door and two lower windows are later additions and do not relate well to the proportions of this building or to the streetscape.
· Construct a new storefront, as shown on the submitted drawing. The proposed design reestablishes the storefront cornice and raises the entry door and windows to their initial height, which is evident in the 1885 photo and from the physical remnants of the old floor.
· Match the storefront cornice with the upper cornice.
· Install storefront windows that have four panes each, as shown in the 1885 photo. A previous application had requested different windows, but the Board rejected these as inconsistent with the Secretary's Standards as well as Preservation Brief 11. This proposal addresses these earlier concerns and brings this application in line with the Historic District ordinance.
· Install a front door that is a wood double door, with a two-lite transom. These features are also modified from the previous application, to be consistent with the 1885 photo.
· Install an exterior light fixture at the corner of the house.
· Install operable raised panel shutters on the upper front windows. The Board approved louvered shutters in March 2002, but solid shutters are more consistent with the period of the house. The 1885 photo shows the proposed design.

This application should be considered within the context of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, as follows:
1. The property is proposed to have its historic commercial features restored.
2. The historic character of the property will be restored through construction of a storefront, based on available photographs, that will also re-integrate this building into the rhythm and balance of the streetscape.
3. The new storefront will be based on photo documentation, avoiding a false sense of historical development.
4. The existing front door and the two lower front windows do not relate to the historic property or to the adjoining buildings. They are not thought to have attained historic significance in their own right, except perhaps as a monument to inept carpentry.
5. Except for the poorly installed front door and lower windows (proposed to be removed) the distinctive features of this property will be preserved intact.
6. Replacement of the historic storefront will be based on pictorial evidence.
7. Not applicable.
8. Not applicable.
9. Not applicable.
10.The proposed new storefront will not impair the essential form and integrity of the historic properly.
Staff finds restoration of the historic storefront to be architecturally compatible with the historic aspects of the Historic District and recommends approval of the submitted drawings.
West Elevation, ca 1885
West Elevation, 1927
West Elevation, proposed
Window shutter
Window section
West Wall section