MEMBERS PRESENT
William Jacobs, Chair
Helen Ross, Co-Chair
Paul O'Neill
Paula Raudenbush
John Sperlazza
Sabina Weitzman

MEMBERS ABSENT
Barry Waldman

CITY STAFF
Erik Nelson, Senior Planner
Susan Blackwood, Recording Secretary

Mr. Jacobs called the Architectural Review Board to order at 7:30 p.m. He reviewed the standard practices of the meeting. Mr. Nelson presented the applications

OPENING REMARKS
Mr. Jacobs determined that a quorum was present. Mr. Nelson indicated that public notice requirements had been met.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Mr. O'Neill added consideration of a change in the meeting time of the ARB from 7:30 to 7:00. He also added consideration of a requirement that fences be painted.
Mr. Sperlazza added discussion of work at 130 Caroline Street.
Ms. Raudenbush made a motion to accept the agenda, as amended. Mr. Ishii seconded. Motion carried unanimously.

REVIEW OF MINUTES
Ms. Raudenbush noted that item number 10, on page 9, should include the street name - "Prince Edward Street."

Mr. Nelson noted that item number 11, fire damaged building, should read "1214" instead of 1203.

Mr. Jacobs asked if there were any changes to the minutes from the February 23 work session.

Mr. O'Neill said that he wanted to let the public know that the Fredericksburg Area Museum had proposed to demolish the building at 215 William Street. In the minutes, in the 3rd paragraph, there is a statement that says "there is clearly latitude to make first floor alterations that provide a suitable entry to this portion of the museum complex..." He stated that he did not know where the language, "clearly latitude," came from. He suggested that instead of saying "clearly latitude," the sentence should read: "there may be latitude."

Mr. Jacobs noted that the discussion had included comments by the Board that the first floor facade had obviously been considerably altered, but that the second story appeared reasonably intact and therefore not suitable for demolition.

Mr. O'Neill said that Mr. Nelson was supposed to find out when that work had occurred. It could have been 40 or 50 years ago and it could be very historic, but it was not a question of "clear latitude."

Mr. O'Neill said he would like the following sentence added to the minutes: "The applicants were advised of paragraph 6c, of the ARB Rules of Procedure, relating to the non-binding nature of advice or opinions by ARB members at this type of meeting."

Ms. Raudenbush made a motion to accept the minutes for both meetings, as amended. Ms. Weitzman seconded. Motion carried unanimously.

APPLICATIONS

1. Charles B. Jones - Sign at 818 Sophia Street
The applicant was not present. There was no public comment.
Ms. Raudenbush made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed sign a 818 Sophia Street. Mr. Sperlazza seconded. Motion passed unanimously.

2. Loft, LLC - Sign at 1005 Princess Anne Street
The applicant was not present. There was no public comment.
Mr. Sperlazza made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed sign at 1005 Princess Anne Street. Ms. Raudenbush seconded. Motion passed unanimously.

3. Fredericksburg Athenaeum - Sign and light at 109 Amelia Street
Paul Lewis, Executive Director of the Athenaeum, was present to represent the application. There was no public comment.
Mr. Sperlazza cautioned the applicant to be very careful about drilling through the mortar joints for anchorage as well as for the electrical requirements of the light. This is a very old structure and the brick surface could be damaged very easily.
Mr. Sperlazza made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed sign and the light at 109 Amelia Street. Ms. Weitzman seconded. Motion carried unanimously.

4. Johanna Humphrey - Fence at 1504 Caroline Street
The applicant was present. There was no public comment.
Ms. Raudenbush asked if there would be a gate.
Ms. Humphrey said a gate was not needed.
Mr. O'Neill asked if the fence would be painted white.
Ms. Humphrey said the fence would be stained cedar.
Ms. Weitzman made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed fence at 1504 Caroline Street. Ms. Raudenbush seconded. Motion carried unanimously.

5. Jim Igo - Deck, Dock and a Fence at 605 Sophia Street
The applicant, Jim Igo, was present. He stated that there was an existing dock, but that it was in disrepair. He intended to replace it with one exactly the same size. There was no public comment.
Mr. Sperlazza asked how far the fence would extend down the property line.
Mr. Igo said it would go back to the garage.
Mr. O'Neill said, in reading the code, he thought the maximum height of the fence should be six feet, since the property was a residential use in a CD district.
Mr. Nelson noted that the fence would be between a residential use and a commercial use.
Mr. O'Neill asked Mr. Nelson to cite the code. Mr. Nelson said he did not have the code with him and went to retrieve it.
Mr. Nelson returned and said the Board should consider only a six foot fence.
Ms. Weitzman said it was easy to see why a tall fence would be required when one stood in the adjacent parking lot.
Mr. O'Neill made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed dock, the proposed deck and a six foot fence at 605 Sophia Street, with the condition that the fence step down to three feet, from the front setback to the front property line.
Mr. Sperlazza said he thought that the applicant could go before the Planning Commission and get a Special Use Permit for an eight foot fence.
Mr. Nelson said that was correct, but it would still have to get ARB approval.
Ms. Raudenbush asked if the Board could amend the motion to say that it would grant an eight foot fence pending approval of a Special Use Permit, and if that did not happen, then a 6 foot fence would be okay?
Mr. O'Neill said he would not accept that amendment.
Mr. Sperlazza seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.

6. William Johnson - Amendment of Certificate of Appropriateness for new construction at 410 William Street
The application was represented by Bob Steele, architect. Mr. Steele reviewed their proposed amendment.
Rudy van Leeuwen, a resident of Spotsylvania County, said it was very hard for the public to actually react to the new proposed scheme without knowing the plans. He said it should show on the projector so everybody can look at it. He claimed that this was democracy at its worst. He said he was a civil engineer and did not know anything about architecture. He said imagine the Empire State Building, 85 stories high, and taking 20 percent of the top off. The architecture would be disturbed. In this case, they were taking off one floor of a building. He said he could not contemplate how anyone could submit this type of a drawing before this Board. He asked what was wrong with their architectural sense.
Mr. Jacobs stated that for the public's information, drawings are available in the Office of Planning. The same package that the Board members receive is available to the public. On many occasions, residents take advantage of that and look at the drawings before the actual meeting.
Mary Ellen Wheeler, 1201 Princess Anne Street, said she had looked at the drawings. She said there had been a cap on the building and now it was gone. She noted that the scale of the building was now less problematic. It was clear from the start that the owners were trying to design a building of considerable distinction. The strongest point in the earlier proposal was the continuation of the cornice line on the existing building on the corner of William and Charles Street. But to continue going up as they were now doing, without any sort of termination above that cornice, was just lopping off the dome. She said it was good that the 4th floor is gone, but why did the 3rd floor not have the same amount of architectural interest that the previous cap had?
Raymond Herlong, 1009 Prince Edward Street, noted that if the drawings had been available for that long, they could at least have had one up on the screen. He then proceeded to inform the Board that the intent of Division 23 was clear - it says regulations of the Historic District are intended to protect, restore and preserve the architectural integrity of the existing structures, to create an atmosphere from compatible growth for the future, to prevent the intrusion of environmental influences adverse to such purposes and to ensure that new structures and uses will be in character with the historic district. He said that Chapter 3 of the City Code authorizes and directs the ARB to implement and administer Division 23. He said the directive was clear, but that some diminish the effectiveness of this body by stressing lesser sections of the code. For example, 14-591 lists items to consider an application complete. Information necessary for the ARB to decide an application must be provided or the application should be rejected. Section 14-593 states that the Board shall consider the applications relatedness to existing historic district structures and characteristics, including a list of elements that ends with appropriateness of the new structure to its historic setting. He asked whether requesting additional information, like a model, was an additional requirement, or just something necessary for this Board to discharge its duty properly and relate it to the purpose and intent of the code? He requested that the Board reconsider this application, require a study model, review the parking, and warn other bodies of the parking impact this project will have on the district. He closed by stating that it had taken a citizens appeal to change this project.
Mr. Jacobs asked Mr. Steele if he had any follow-up comments.
Mr. Steele said that they were not just lopping the top off the building. He is the architect. He designed a building where no one was ever intended to see the 4th floor. The proposed amendment was far different from taking 20 stories off the Empire State Building, or any structure that is designed to be seen. All of the site lines studies that were presented and all the perspective drawings were meant to show that every effort had been made to ensure that no citizen would really have opportunity to see that 4th floor unless they were blocks away. He said that to suggest that removing a space that was never intended to be seen from the ground would somehow make a bad piece of architecture is erroneous. None of the site lines that the Board had seen have changed. Second, the parking required for this building is 72 spaces and Mr. Johnson is working with his civil engineers to take care of the parking issue. This building is all office space. He had 30 spaces on-site, he had ownership of the lot across the street that provides close to the total number required. Third, he believed the reason the developer was there was because he was sensitive to his neighbors and the citizens, but also because he realized that in the marketplace, where the tenants are interested in this type of building and in locating their offices downtown, that they require some very specific things, such as adequate parking. He emphasized that it was only good business sense to address all of the items raised.
Mr. Jacobs asked for comments from the Board.
Mr. O'Neill said that Mr. Steele had presented a total of four projects to the City, three of which are exceptional. He is probably one of the best architects who has come before the ARB. However, he said he agreed with the three public speakers. He said he thought the most interesting part of this building was the 4th floor roof. What was now proposed was a building with a traction elevator and an elevator cabroom up on the roof, which was not terribly attractive. He said the applicant should go to hydraulic, instead of traction, and save 20 percent of the costs and $200 a month in maintenance. He said the staff report wanted to give the impression that this building was changed because of parking issues. He stated that the reason it was changed was because of the public outcry. The same parking issue has been present since day one. This case illustrates exactly why parking and FAR density have to be dealt with before any application comes to the ARB. He said his calculations show that if the building goes all office, the applicant is still 15 parking spaces shy. There was still a big parking problem. He asked why would someone spend the money to bring the plans to this state of detail, without parking being resolved? He said the entire building needed to be redesigned.
Ms. Raudenbush asked for clarification of a detail on the south elevation, page A2.2, regarding the railings.
Mr. Steele said he had not changed those. Mr. Steele also clarified that there was no traction elevator proposed. The elevator will be hydraulic. All of the screening devices and material changes around that facade are done to articulate and be respectful of the adjacent architecture.
Ms. Weitzman asked if the mechanical screening on the top floor would be visible from William Street?
Mr. Steele said that it would be in the same location as the original 4th floor screen and because it was a couple of feet lower in height, approximately 3' lower in height, it should not be visible. He confirmed that from William Street, the 3rd floor cornice is what would terminate the building.
Mr. Sperlazza said that he had contacted Mr. Nelson earlier in the week and suggested that perhaps the Board should review this program in its entirety. Staff had indicated that that might not be fair to the applicant, but he still believed that there were significant changes that had happened, and it was his recommendation that the Board should go back to the beginning.
Mr. O'Neill asked if that was a motion.
Mr. Sperlazza said that was just a comment.
Mr. Jacobs asked if he could outline what those changes are.
Mr. Sperlazza said the upper floor removal was one. There was a concave roof on the system at one point, and it now indicated a flat roof. He thought there were some windows added, maybe to give a more symmetrical view, in back of the James Monroe Museum.
Mr. O'Neill made a motion to table this application for further review.
Mr. Sperlazza seconded.
Ms. Weitzman asked if she could amend the motion to include that any reconsideration of the application include either a scale model of the building or a detailed architectural section through the building.
Mr. O'Neill accepted her amendment, with the understanding that it be a massing model, as opposed to any type of sectional drawing.
Mr. Jacobs clarified that the Board would table this case for review, and look to the architect for more information.
Mr. Nelson clarified that the city code requires them to make a decision. So if there is information that is missing, then the Board needed to clarify or specify that, but the initial project had been approved without a model.
Mr. O'Neill interrupted and said the Board did ask for a model.
Mr. Nelson said the applicant had brought in additional drawings in lieu of a model, and staff had specifically asked the Board if that information was suitable and sufficient. The Board had indicated that it was.
Mr. O'Neill asked what was wrong with a model. He said a massing model is not that expensive. It was unanimously agreed to, by this Board, that there should be a model. The applicant came back, at the next meeting, and said, a model was too expensive. He said the applicant provided drawings instead.
Mr. Nelson responded, that was why he had asked the specific question, as to whether the drawings were acceptable. The Board had indicated that they were.
Mr. O'Neill asked: "What are you dancing around here? What is the issue you're trying to arrive at?"
Mr. Nelson said there was a legal issue.
Mr. O'Neill interrupted and asked what legal issue.
Mr. Jacobs asked Mr. O'Neill not to continue to interrupt.
Mr. O'Neill asked for a citation.
Mr. Jacobs said the project had gone through the process with several reviews, several modified drawings, and opportunities for the public and the Board to comment. He said there was a motion to table for more information, which had been seconded. The intent was to ask the architect for more information, if that was the decision of the Board.
Mr. O'Neill asked Ms. Weitzman if she agreed to the modifications he had made to her amendment.
Ms. Weitzman said the only reason she offered that amendment was to help her and the rest of the Board to understand the application fully. Even though she is trained to look at these drawings it's still a bit of an extrapolation for her to try to understand it completely. She stated that the proposal was a handsome building and that a model would help other people see that as well.
Mr. Nelson said the ordinance requires the Board to render a decision within 30 days. If the Board is going to table the application, it needed to be very specific as to what was missing.
Mr. O'Neill said he did not think that was true. He said the ARB can table this case for another year and it would not make any difference.
Mr. Nelson said that legally they could not.
Mr. O'Neill said the Board could. He said he called the question on the motion.
Mr. Jacobs asked him to restate the motion.
Mr. O'Neill said he moved that this application be tabled for further review, with the understanding that the applicant will provide a scale model of the building, as well as adjoining buildings, namely on that side of William Street, that side of Charles Street and that side of Prince Edward Street.
Mr. Nelson noted that he was requesting a model of the entire block.
Mr. O'Neill said yes.
Mr. Jacobs asked the Board to vote. Mr. Jacobs, Mr. Sperlazza and Mr. O'Neill voted yes. Ms. Ross, Ms. Raudenbush and Ms. Weitzman voted no. Vote was 3-3.
Mr. O'Neill asked for a roll call. The vote was still 3-3.
Ms. Raudenbush said that when the Board first looked at this site plan and massing and asked for the applicant to bring in a model, it was because everybody was concerned about the 4th floor. The applicant's architect drew countless renderings of sight views, showing, as she thought the ARB agreed, that the 4th floor would not be visible. At that point, the Board said that it did not need to see a scale model, because that was the biggest problem. She emphasized that they had moved past this issue by looking at those sight lines. The amended 4th floor mechanical enclosure was even smaller, so it was disappearing even more. She noted that the plans show every level because they are flat, two dimensional. The site plan shows the space it will take up in the block. Ms. Raudenbush said that a scale model at this point, would not make any difference.
Mr. Jacobs asked if anyone wanted to make a motion.
Ms. Raudenbush made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed amendments to the design of the building at 410 William Street. Ms. Weitzman seconded. Motion passed 4-2 with Mr. Sperlazza and Mr. O'Neill voting against.

7. Fredericksburg Baptist Church - Demolition of structure and installation of brick wall at 1016 Princess Anne Street
The application was represented by Darrell Caldwell, 1001 Featherstone Court. He noted that one of the comments at the last meeting was that the reconfiguration of the wall was being done to get more parking spaces. He confirmed that this was true, but that the church initially approached the adjoining property owner for the sole purpose of buying only enough property to straighten the alignment of the rear entry that comes in from Charles Street. It was her suggestion that all the property that had been sold to her from one of the tracts that the bank had occupied, be purchased and the wall straightened to enclose her back yard. The church agreed to pursue that option and the plan was to continue the existing wall line as it leaves Amelia Street. Mr. Caldwell also noted that one individual thought this wall was a part of the adjoining property, but that this was not true. This wall was on the bank's property and it had been constructed by the bank. The applicant then discussed the submitted renderings. He said the parking lot will be well lighted and landscaped. They will use the light fixtures similar to those downtown. All of the materials used will be exactly like what was already on the property. The church has a membership of nearly 2,000 people. A lot of these people are senior citizens. They have activities at the church seven days a week, but because of the parking problems, a lot of the senior citizens are not able to get to the church.
Tony P. Wrenn, 407 Hanover Street, claimed that this case was, aesthetically, one of the most important applications to come before the ARB in a long time. The streetscape is one of the city's most important, as the Princess Anne Street corridor is a magnificent introduction into the historic city. He said the building should not be allowed to be torn down. He said that if that building was 50 years old, and though he would not suggest this, it was possible that it could be considered for certification for nomination to both the Virginia Register and the National Register of Historic Places. He said this parking lot will only be for the Baptists and will not increase public parking. Furthermore, the cutting of trees on the property over this last weekend should not be countenanced.
Edwin Watson, 811 Moncure Street, said the Fredericksburg Area Museum looked at this property when they were looking to purchase 1001 Princess Anne Street, the bank building, which, he noted, they don't intend to tear down. They looked at this property very carefully, noting it would be helpful for parking downtown. They looked at the small building very carefully, but decided it would be very difficult to change it. He emphasized it would nearly be impossible to change it. The museum is faced now with two vaults in the 1001 building, and he can't get them out. This small building also has a big vault with thick walls, which is very difficult to remove. He agreed that this was an important corner to Fredericksburg and the entrance to the city. But still, it is a parking lot, and there was a need for downtown parking. The lot was restricted, bank parking before, and he assumed it would remain restricted, church parking. He said he was speaking on behalf of the Church, as a citizen and not as a representative of the Museum, but that they did look at the property very carefully and they have worked together on these two properties to try to make good use of them for the future. He said it was his opinion that they could take down this drive-through bank building and it would not affect the downtown area.
Robert Krick, 1011 Charles Street, said he was limiting his remarks to the run-through to Charles Street, the east-west running driveway, which has had on either side of it, for a quarter of a century, wooden boundary walls. He said he was a resident of Federal Square, just to the south. When that project was started, in 1981, the bank erected the boundary fence on its property. He said as of six days ago, the church's plan was to take down the boundary fence and replace it with a 3 foot high brick wall, which provided neither security, nor access, nor privacy.
Ms. Raudenbush asked for clarification about the fence, noting that the staff report said the existing wooden fence on the south side of the alley will not be altered.
Mr. Caldwell said there had been some discussions between Mr. Krick and the church administrator about what was planned for that area. The reason they chose not to do anything, except to leave the wooden fence, was that they have also been approached by a property owner on the other side of the travel lane as well, about some ideas that they have. Since there are no firm plans with that one owner, they did not want to do something on one side of the road, that someone else may not want on the other side of the road.
Mr. O'Neill said that Mr. Wrenn was right on target in every respect. He said he had been shocked on Saturday, about 9:30 a.m., when he discovered the trees being sawed down, by an army of parishioners, he presumed. This was 9:30 in the morning. Apparently they started quite early, when there wouldn't be anyone around, at least in his view. He said he could not imagine starting a project like this, without ARB approval. He suggested that either they had been told they will have approval, and to go ahead and demolish these trees, or they just had no care whatsoever for the beauty of these trees. As Mr. Wrenn pointed out, this tree line is the only thing that breaks the mass of that whole parking area. He said that frankly it was just tragic. He then said he wanted to make a few comments on the staff report and then go into the proposed plan. He noted that the first paragraph of the staff report had a reference that this land was sold, to the owners of 304 Amelia Street in 1960. He said he had Lawyers Title do a title search on both properties. He said the existing deeds have been the same since the early 1900s. He claimed there was no conveyance to the owner of 304, by direct deed, nor was there any less an excepting clause in the bank's subsequent conveyances out. He said that clearly this was not a situation of a quid pro quo, as the staff report might want them to believe. The staff also mentioned that the bank building was erected in 1960. Well, the current building, according to the city records, was built about 24 years ago. He said he was led to believe that the brick wall, possibly, goes back further than 1960. He continued that in the issue of the removal of the bank building, staff mentioned a 1972 preservation plan and noted that this type of vehicle oriented structure should not be allowed in what should be a pedestrian oriented area. He remarked that this is kind of a crazy type thing, because the proposal was to go from a pedestrian oriented area to a parking lot. At least in the past, the little building there respected the streetscape and all the parking was in back, which is one of the tenets of historic preservation in this town. He stated that in the issue of whether this was a historic building or not, age is of no particular importance. He said this building has architecturally defining elements. The staff report refers to it as a pseudo-Colonial look. He said he would prefer to say it's a Colonial Revival. He said it was just a question of where your interest lies.
Mr. Jacobs asked for other comments.
Mr. O'Neill said he was not finished.
Mr. O'Neill said the staff report stated that the growing demand for parking suggested that infill construction was unlikely in the near future. He said there was no merit to that issue. He stated that the plan itself would put Carl Silver as a disciple of Frederick Law Olmstead, who designed the actual Central Park, not Central Park as we know it. He said the proposal was for a shopping center parking lot. There was no landscaping, no interest whatsoever. He said it was just a visual disaster.
Ms. Weitzman said she appreciated the church's need for more parking, but a more ambitious plan was needed. If the plan is to take down the building, then there existed an opportunity to develop a really interesting view of the front of the church. An open space in front of a tall building, like a church, is a reasonable urban form, providing a means to back away from something tall. She said, the trick will be to make the parking lot a visual asset.
Ms. Ross commented on the Charles Street egress. She noted that what was in place right now was very effective at keeping traffic at a slow rate of speed, sort of a traffic calming element. She emphasized that more work is needed to ensure the parking lot becomes a contribution to the Historic District.
Mr. Sperlazza suggested a work session was in order. He said they could open up the front area, so one can observe the front of the church in all its glory, but it all needed to be softened. He said this is a major corridor into the city and it deserved more attention than just a straight parking lot.
Mr. O'Neill said it would be advantageous to the church and the city if a landscape architect were to be brought on board prior to the work session.
Mr. O'Neill made a motion to table the application. Mr. Sperlazza seconded with a friendly amendment that a work session be scheduled for March 22. Mr. O'Neill accepted the amendment. Motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Nelson stated for the record that he was not used to having his integrity questioned in a public session. He stated that his research on the brick wall and the property history was solid and he stood behind it.

8. Woodmere Associates, Ltd. - New construction at 515 Prince Edward Street
Mr. Nelson stated the applicants were not yet ready to return for this item.

9. Joe Wilson - Exterior Alterations at 405 Amelia Street
The applicant was present. There was no public comment.
Joe Wilson, 309 Caroline Street, stated that he had purchased 405 Amelia Street several months ago, with the intent to move his real estate office into the building. He had brought with him several samples of the roofing he desired to use. He said the proposed material has a guaranteed life of 50 to 75 years. Mr. Wilson approached the Board to show them the material. He said these tiles were virtually indistinguishable from real slate from a distance of several feet. He noted that these tiles had been approved in a number of applications around the country, such as by the National Park Service for the Point Lookout Lighthouse renovation at Point Lookout, Maryland and the Ulysses S. Grant farmhouse in St. Louis. They had also been approved by the District of Columbia Fine Arts Commission for use on the Water Mansion and by the United States Navy, the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery, as well as the General Services Administration for use in the historic district, particularly on the Potomac annex buildings in D.C, and others. He said the material is half the cost of natural slate. He reminded the Board that the City Council had approved this material for use at 1301 Prince Edward Street. He requested approval of this material for use at 405 Amelia Street.
Mr. O'Neill said that slate should be used in the Historic District. He said that to approve the application would be a violation of Preservation Brief 16 and standards 2 and 9 of the Secretary's Standards for Rehabilitation.
Mr. Sperlazza said the proposal was inconsistent with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, item 2, which states that the historic character of the property shall be retained and preserved, and removal of historic materials, alterations, features and spaces that characterized a property shall be avoided. He also referred to item 6, which basically talks about repairing materials and matching them in kind, by color, and by texture. He also acknowledged item 9, which Mr. O'Neill had brought up.
Mr. Jacobs said that the sample was made from a mold. If there were 100 or 200 molds, then one could assemble the roof with these variations, to achieve a pattern that is similar to the slate. Without these variations, the appearance of the new roof would be one of a pattern that doesn't exist in slate. In addition, when slate breaks off after time, it separates, while this material would more than likely tear. He also expressed concern that in the case of a storm the new material would not wear too well. Over time, it probably is a material that would fade and have a different patina than the slate.
Mr. O'Neill made a motion to deny this application. Mr. Sperlazza seconded. Motion passed unanimously.

10. Chris Limbrick - Exterior Alterations at 211-211½ Prince Edward Street
The applicant, Chris Limbrick, was present. He said this was a property that he had purchased with investors. He said they intended to replace nearly everything on the outside, with the exception of the roof which was replaced last year with the same material. He said the doors do not match, windows have disintegrated, and there is plywood over one window to keep the birds out. They are proposing to put the house back together, using like materials. They want to install new wood doors, rebuild the jambs, and install windows that are vinyl clad wood. They want to replace the siding in kind.
Mary Ellen Wheeler, 1201 Princess Anne Street, said this was an important building. It is a simple, modest, vernacular building and probably has a great many of its original materials. She said it was exactly the type of building the ARB was supposed to be protecting. There was not any documentation to examine, though.
Ms. Raudenbush agreed that the Board was not seeing the whole picture. The only thing available was information on the doors and windows.
Mr. Nelson said that what was being presented were the alterations. Squaring up the framing is a repair, as is repair of the siding. The extent of repair was large, but the extent of the changes was limited to the doors and windows.
Ms. Weitzman asked if the siding would be replaced or repaired?
Mr. Limbrick said that they were only replacing what can't be repaired. The siding will be the same size and reveal pine siding that is there now, painted.
Ms. Weitzman said that before replacing the front doors, they might want to do some more research to find out more about the house.
Mr. Sperlazza asked if they had looked at using a true divided wood window, instead of the vinyl clad?
Mr. Limbrick said this question goes back to the economics of putting buildings back together again. Several of the properties in the neighborhood have already been renovated and not by historic standards. There is vinyl siding, plastic windows, etc. He said he was competing against that. This project has to be done in a cost effective manner. He said he could not reasonably spend more money than what the property was worth.
Mr. O'Neill said the character of this area was changing dramatically. He said the Board had recently approved 11 new townhouses on Dunmore Street, and they will probably sell for $300,000. He strongly suggested that the windows were important in a structure like this, probably the most significant architecturally defining element in the building.
Mr. Limbrick said he was certainly willing to provide more information.
Mr. Sperlazza made a motion to table this application. Mr. O'Neill seconded. Motion carried unanimously.

Mr. Jacobs said they would take the suggestion from Mr. Nelson to take the items out of order. The applicant, for item #11, was not present so they would take item #12 out of sequence because School Board members and their architects were present. The Board took a short recess, from 9:50 - 10 p.m., while the architects set up their PowerPoint presentation.

12. City of Fredericksburg - Advisory review of new upper elementary school and new James Monroe High School
Mr. Doug Westmoreland, representing Moseley Architects and First Choice Public Private Partners, with Jim Pocoliko and Steve Bertowski, briefed the Board and the public on the two proposed schools.
There was no public comment.
Mr. Jacobs asked for comment from the Board.
Mr. O'Neill said the architects had done a nice job. He said he thought they had captured the architecturally defining elements of the historic district and transferred them to an area where there was not much context.
Mr. Weitzman said they had designed very nice looking buildings and that it was clear that the process of involving students, teachers, and citizens had been very successful. Her concern involved the high school, which is a great looking building, but will be set back a great distance. She encouraged the architects to be sensitive to the fact that Washington Avenue is something of an entrance to the City and some focus was needed on landscaping. The building is where it needs to be, but it is still an entrance to the town and landscaping was needed to close down the edge.
Mr. Sperlazza asked about the potential for expansion years down the road. He also asked why the entrance to the elementary school was not being considered on the Route 1 frontage.
Mr. Westmoreland explained that there was a safety issue in that they needed to get buses off the main road. In addition, there was a large grade differential between the school site and Route 1.
Ms. Ross commended the work and asked about the playing fields being so close to the roads.
Mr. Westmoreland responded that the playing fields would soften the area and be suitably fenced. The overall design maintained traffic where it already existed instead of introducing a new pattern.
Mr. Jacobs said he had comments about the elementary site. He noted that the parking lots are used a great deal after hours and on weekends. He said he thought additional parking would be in order. He also stated that some sort of sidewalk connection between the new school and the existing Walker-Grant School was needed to provide clearly defined circulation that was both inviting and practical.
Mr. Westmoreland said they could address these items.

11. R. B. Pyles - Exterior Alterations at 1214 Caroline Street
The applicant was not present.
Mary Ellen Wheeler, 1201 Princess Anne Street, said her property extended to Caroline Street, next to this building. She said there was apparently nothing in the way of specification of the materials. In commenting on the drawings, Ms. Wheeler cautioned that it was important to distinguish which is the original building and which was the addition, which will be three times as big as the original building. It should be considered and approved all at once, not in pieces. She stated her appreciation that staff had recommended that the gate not open into their yard.
Raymond Herlong, 1009 Prince Edward Street, said that there must be a complete set of documents. In cases where drawings come in this late, there should not be a hearing where people are expected to comment on an application, when they have not had time to review them.
Mr. Nelson stated for the record that three drawings had been available in the office and in the file. The drawings have been available for review. The latest information was amplifying details provided at staff's request.
Mr. Herlong said they should not approve this stuff piecemeal.
Mr. Jacobs noted that the Board needed time to review the information.
Mr. Nelson agreed.
Mr. O'Neill made a motion to table the application. Mr. Sperlazza seconded. Motion passed unanimously.

OTHER BUSINESS

1. Mr. Nelson transmitted the Planning Commission agenda.
2. Mr. Nelson presented slides of the Embrey Dam demolition and pointed out areas that would eventually be brought before the Board for review.
3. Mr. Nelson briefed the Board on the demolished chimney at 904 Caroline Street and outlined areas of internal coordination that needed to be addressed to avoid similar loss of historic fabric.
4. Mr. Nelson briefed the Board on the legal work being done to address the altered roof at 1407 Caroline Street.
5. Mr. O'Neill raised the issue of the painted grills at the Fredericksburg Baptist Church. He said he had been informed that staff had allowed the deviation from the Certificate of Appropriateness. He also said staff had not properly addressed the gazebo and fence at 525 Caroline Street, but that he did not believe anything was going to be done anyway. He provided a draft letter to be sent to the Zoning Administrator. The Board reviewed the letter and provided comments and corrections. Mr. O'Neill agreed to provide a smooth version for the Chair's signature. Mr. Nelson said that comments about staffs integrity in a public forum should be made more judiciously and with full information.
Mr. O'Neill said he did not agree.
6. Mr. Nelson informed the Board that the City's CLG application had been submitted to the Virginia Department of Historic Resources.
7. Mr. Nelson briefed the Board on the appeal of a decision for 701 Caroline Street. Mr. Jacobs will not be available to attend the related Council meeting on March 23. Ms. Ross, as vice-chair, said she could represent the Board at the appeal.
8. Mr. Nelson transmitted a letter from Phil Chapman regarding a dumpster at 1101 Sophia Street. He said he would follow up with a return letter and action through the Zoning Administrator.