Architectural Review Board

Hamilton Palmer 401 Charles Street Fredericksburg, VA 22401 email: hpalmer@hgp.biz April 6, 2023 To: Chair and Members of the City of Fredericksburg Architectural Review Board Fr: Hamilton Palmer, adjacent property owner Re: 400 Princess Anne Street and public hearing Madam Chair and Members, Thank you for your concern with the proposed development at 400 Princess Anne. Some members raised questions about the height of the proposed development and the applicant indicated he needed the extra height and roof access to provide open space and that balconies were not an option. A review of the recording of the March 13th ARB meeting indicates your concerns were valid. Also, this Public Hearing and Applicants responses points out why ARB Site Planning, Massing and Scale should be done concurrently with the other approvals. Most all of the applicants comments and reasoning for the 4th floor (3rd floor with a box on top) is predicated on him having to provide a fire apparatus access road to the rear of his parking lot. Saying the fire official is requiring this may be misinformation and is a reason why this review needs be done in tandem with other departments and their reviews. The below information is germane to this issue, and I think you should read to understand this neighbors viewpoint. Following is taken from the Public Hearing (not quotes unless quotation marks and italics) with approximate time stamp (33:22) in the recording indicate the following: 39:30 When discussing height of the Mechanical Room question, the Applicant (MA) said ‘the reason for such large is because no outdoor space and because we don't have room to put porches or balconies. It (stairwell and mechanical room) gives them the option, not the option but necessity of having access to service the HVAC unit. If you look at the last page, it shows 34' parapet height. The roof height is below that. If you compare that to everything we just built, it is lower. Fact check: if there is no parapet and no mechanical room (no 4th story or >30’), then no aerial fire apparatus access required and you likely can install balconies. Subject to Site Plan review by Fire Department. 43:43 MA – “townhouses that we build literally across the street are taller than this. Great. pretty much everything around it is taller than us”. You have to be a few blocks away to even see it (4th floor walkout). Fact check: MA did not build townhomes literally across the street. You do not have to be a few blocks away to see ‘it’ (See attached profiles.). And, 400, 404, 406 (all contiguous) are lower. 45:30 ARB member- No outdoor space - I recall the Loft balconies. MA –“that alley at 20' is required to be completely free of anything so a ladder truck can access the buildings to fight fire”.. We’ve already done the analysis with the ladder trucks the city sent us to make sure we meet the minimum requirement. No way you can put balconies back there. Fact check: Fire Apparatus Access Road generally not required for 3 story townhomes within 150’ of fire apparatus access road (Frederick Street) subject to Site Plan approval. And, aerial fire apparatus access roads for townhomes >30’ are required to be 26’ wide and not 20’..IFC Section D105 or as modified by the Fire Official – in this case 24’ wide.. 49:30 ARB member: structure is massive, can roof access be smaller? MA - from street not going to see. From a few blocks away, really from anywhere within a block of this you would never ever see it. It is just not going to be possible. We are below the guidelines. The building we built across the street, we are way below all of that and for the main structure, we are way below everything. Fact check: MA is not ‘way below everything’ and not ‘way below the guidelines; Not even close, he is not even below the adjacent buildings at 400, 404, 406 Princess Anne and 311 Frederick Street. 53:00 MA - have to have flat roof because only area to offer outdoor space to residents ARB member: are the bump outs part of the massing or part of details. Staff- part of the details. You would be approving essentially a box. ARB to MA: would you consider removing the bump? MA the box on the roof is actually the indoor air handler and hot water heater and the outside is the outdoor unit. Fact check: the box on the roof is just that box. One member indicated that drawings can be misleading and maybe staff were misled about the size of these boxes. The (approximate dimensions) ‘box’ on Unit 1 is 15’ x 18’ and Unit 2 and 3 are 16’ x 10’ and Units 4 and 5 are 13’x13’. The boxes are not required for the outdoor HVAC equipment. This is not just one box but several boxes above the third story. Are these boxes part of the massing and scale of the building? MA: This is a multi-stage process. First the box, then the PC for site plan approval and then City Council. Fact: he is correct. However, because the applicant needs variances and special use permits, it is important this be done in conjunction with ARB to address site planning, safety, density, trees, parking, and subdivision and more specifically, the fire code requirements.. . End of fact checking the Public Hearing – begin general comment. It appears that if the ‘box’ on the roof is not there, then the three story townhomes would not need an aerial fire apparatus access road and could install balconies. Other comments during the public hearing: when one member asked about the bump out on the unit next to the coffee shop and why they could not put it (hvac) between the two buildings, the applicant said that the hvac next to the building was a fire hazard and he did not want the adjacent building to catch fire. However, there is a hvac unit in that same space. Attached is a profile showing Units 1 and 2 based on the limited information provided in the application. Both profiles indicate that you would be able to see the ‘boxes’ from the street I am also concerned the Applicant has not addressed: • Parking (5. Site Elements F. “the location of parking is considered a component of overall site planning” • Trees: UDO 72-23.1 “shall consider the existence of trees and other landscaping, and the extent of paving.” Sincerely, Hamilton Palmer Next door neighbor  8' 10' 12.5' JANNEY ne i l MARSHALL te ne i l si te si om om lro ro ca i al 30' nc i han ha ec ec m m hgh i gh i 8' 10 'h UNIT 1 4. 5' PRINCESS ANNE STREET SIDEWALK SIDEWALK CENTERLI NE 8' 10' lin 9' e s it e e i ln e c ite h sa n m ic 30' o a o lr lr o a o ic m n a m h c ' e h m ig h h 5' 10 ig h ' 8 UNIT 2 GRASS SI DEW ALK SI DEW ALK GRASS FREDERICK STREET CURB CURB CENTERLI NE ROW 400PA.dgn 3/19/2023 1:46:22 PM 10 April 2023 To: Kate S. Schwartz ksschwartz@fredericksburgva.gov cc: Planning@fredericksburgva.gov The Historic Fredericksburg Foundation has reviewed the upcoming agenda and related COA documents for the April 10, 2023 meeting of the Architectural Review Board and submits the following comments on select projects. Public Hearing: COA FY23-0010 – 301-303 Hanover Street HFFI supports staff’s recommendation to continue this application to the May 8th meeting as this COA has many components. The design of proposed new construction is much improved from the previous iteration, but feels that it continues to contrast somewhat sharply with the architectural composition of the original and existing building, particularly at the west elevation. COA FY23-0030 – 400 Princess Anne Street This application has changed substantially since it was initially introduced and HFFI appreciates how the alterations have enhanced the residential character of the proposed design. The inclusion of measurements and prospective views of the new design in context with surrounding historic resources is also a great improvement upon the previous application(s). Both buildings proposed by this new construction are taller than most surrounding resources, and HFFI feels that continued modifications could reduce the height and improve the contextual appearance of this infill project. Floor heights in the surrounding historic neighborhood are generally much less than 11 feet tall; thus, it remains unclear how the vertical elements of the new design relate to the rooflines, cornices, fenestration, and façade features of adjacent contributing resources. Newly submitted information suggests that the 4th floor is less visible from the street around the larger of the two newly proposed buildings, but it remains a conspicuous feature of the smaller unit that faces Princess Anne Street. HFFI continues to believe that these vertical massings are not in keeping with design guidelines, which require additional stories to be “stepped back so it is not visible from adjacent streets” (9.C.2.). Furthermore, it is important to note that rooftop porches have no precedence in this neighborhood. Many apartments, condos, and rental residences in town DO NOT have allocated private outdoor space, let alone space on the top of their roofs. When introducing such a new and contemporary feature in a historic setting, it is all the more important to ensure its elements are minimally intrusive to the streetscape. Historic Fredericksburg Foundation, Inc. | 1200 Caroline Street, Fredericksburg, VA 22401 COA FY23-0049 – 1311 Caroline Street HFFI concurs with staff recommendations to deny this COA to replace wood windows at 1311 Caroline. We’d also encourage the applicant to conduct additional research online regarding ways to repair and maintain historic wood windows while simultaneously achieving greater energy efficiency and operability, and ask that they reach out to office@hffi.org for additional assistance, if needed. COA FY23-0050 – 503 Sophia Street HFFI has repeatedly provided comments on the ever-expanding patio structure at Brock’s restaurant over the past year and are saddened to see that the current design introduces unwanted architectural elements that were discussed – at some length at previous ARB meetings. While several different architectural features are out of step with what was approved by the ARB, HFFI is particularly concerned with the plastic sheeting that hangs down from the cornice of the structure and the current roof design that shows the plastic roofing material. COA FY22-0029 – 450 Lafayette Boulevard The design presented for the proposed new construction on Lafayette between the 1.5-story depot that is now Colonial Tavern and the two-story office building at the edge of the district contrasts with that of other new infill projects in the same vicinity. HFFI appreciates revisions made to this design and finds its three-story height, scale, and massing to be relatively compatible with neighboring historic resources and the general industrial-commercial character of the surrounding area. . Historic Fredericksburg Foundation, Inc. | 1200 Caroline Street, Fredericksburg, VA 22401 10 April 2023 Fredericksburg Architectural Review Board 601 Caroline Street, 4th Floor Fredericksburg, VA 22401 Re: COA FY23-0030 – 400 Princess Anne Street Dear Architectural Review Board, My name is Lissah Michalski and I reside at 316 Frederick Street, a roughly 200 year old historic two story “slave jailhouse” situated across the street from the proposed development. 300 Block of Frederick Street - the “Brick Block” The homes will be placed on what we know as the brick block near the sites of two historic brickyards, including that of Geoge Aler, who built my home and many other dwellings in our town. The handbook indicates that materials used in new construction should be visually compatible with original materials used throughout the surrounding neighborhood. Vinyl, asphalt, and aluminum siding are not permitted. On page 103 of the ARB handbook there is a picture of the coffee roaster, which is brick. I believe that this newbuilding should also be a brick structure. Height Building height at the street front should be compatible with the heights of surrounding buildings. The proposed development is too tall, far overshadowing the two story homes that comprise most of the rest of the neighborhood. My house at 316 Charles - the only home on the block - is conspicuously absent from the scale drawings submitted by the applicant. Furthermore, it is my understanding that an exception was granted to the Lofts; including them in the height comparison doesn’t provide that important piece of context. The building height should relate to the average height of existing adjacent structures: two stories. Resident outdoor access on a proposed outdoor roof-level patio can be eliminated, with individual porches (similar to those included in the Lofts design) positioned on the east-facing rear of the building. Hook and ladder fire trucks have a fire lane access on the street front, as do the lofts. Roof pitch The FXBG website states new buildings are integrated into their historic setting and alterations, and must always respect Fredericksburg's historic character. The approval by the ARB would contradict that guideline: roof pitch of new houses should reflect the steeper pitch of older dwellings. Rooftop mechanical equipment should be located as discreetly as possible to limit visibility. By allowing these homes with mansard roof, in a residential area with dominant visually featured double wide parking garages placed in our historic district the ARB would not be ensuring that development reflects our community's values. Setback The proposed homes do not have a setback, which violates city code of ordinance 72-52.2 A,1, Location: Vehicles can enter and exit from a lot without posing any substantial danger to themselves, pedestrians, or vehicles traveling on abutting streets.The Lofts were built in this same manner. To this day, motorists cannot see without braking past the stop sign in the middle of the sidewalk. I have nearly been struck by motorists emerging from these parking areas countless times while walking to and from my home, and I have witnessed others - pets included - nearly missed. Every Wednesday morning - usually at rush hour - a large dumpster truck pulls into the Loft parking area for trash service and then proceeds to back out into Frederick Street. This hazardous maneuver - made necessary by the site design - puts even more cars and pedestrians in danger. If this project is allowed to be built in the same manner, there will no doubt be accidents, injuries, or possibly worse. A larger setback for this project is needed - if not simply to protect citizens, then also to meet code requirements. Right-of-Way Code 72.513,D. Right-of-way lines. Right-of-way lines that form the property lines of lots shall be parallel to the street center line. This is not the case with this new construction. Parking Parking is a tremendous and growing issue in the neighborhood. Frederick Street allows parking only on one side of the street for its entire length, seven spaces in total on this particular block. New city parking restrictions limit visitors to park only on the named street of the resident host. The new development alone requires space for up to twenty cars, ten visitors, and eliminates parking for a restaurant. Count in the three rental units puts us closer to thirty vehicles and zero restaurant parking. Again, the block has only seven spaces on the street. Finally, the proposed development also removes two large healthy trees from the dividing property line and will block the admired view of the train station my neighbors and I have grown to love. They do not resemble any historic home in the surrounding area and should not be allowed due to historic height, mass and scale requirements, out of character facade, parking and quite frankly, safety. Thank you for your time and consideration. Lissah Michalski 316 Frederick Street 10 April 2023 Fredericksburg Architectural Review Board 601 Caroline Street, 4th Floor Fredericksburg, VA 22401 Re: COA FY23-0030 – 400 Princess Anne Street Dear ARB Members: First, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the ARB for its diligence in helping to ensure that this proceeding moves forward with the level of scrutiny that is necessary for such a complex and important project. Similarly, I appreciate the applicant’s continued responsiveness and progress made to date through the submitted revisions. As has been noted in prior meetings, we’re moving in the right direction. That said, I believe we still need to further refine the concept and to push ourselves to more carefully consider the impacts that decisions made in this phase of the discussion will have in subsequent proceedings. It is essential to consider the influence of precedent. On that note, I begin by observing that The Lofts on Charles Street are commonly cited as a reference point in this discussion. That’s appropriate for several reasons, and I think that there’s an opportunity to learn from that project and to apply those lessons here. I moved to this neighborhood too late to participate in the planning meetings related to that project, but I did see that project come into being from my front windows. As is so often the case for development projects in locations with an extremely strong existing sense of place, change has been accepted warily. There’s clearly plenty here to celebrate: the project has brought new life and energy to the block, has notably preserved and even highlighted historic features, and has very admirably incorporated a masonry exterior, thereby advancing a coherent brick aesthetic on the block. This is laudable, especially given the fact that historic brickyards were located nearby during the Civil War era and were important strategic locations during the battle itself. On the other hand, I still remain perplexed at the new norm of size and scale that is suggested by the Lofts complex itself - and what it portends for the future. That norm, if extended through the current 400 Princess Anne design, would dramatically change the character and feel of this very special neighborhood. I was saddened to see my own upstairs view of Marye’s Heights obscured not only by the Lofts’ third floor, but also by the mechanical access and large HVAC units on top of that. Loss of that sightline cut off one of the last remaining visual links between the Lower Caroline neighborhood and Marye’s Heights, a key avenue of the Federal approach in December 1862. I realize that such a concern may seem quixotic to some, but I think that it’s particularly important in a place where awareness of history is paramount. Perhaps more practically, my neighbors on the west side of Princess Anne, who, despite expressing serious concerns at the time, now literally live in the shadow of a new, exceptionally large and tall building. These neighbors; homes - some of Fredericksburg's most historic structures were dwarfed. These neighbors, some of whom have lived in and cared for these homes for decades, literally lost their views of the setting sun itself. While I urge the stakeholders of the 400 Princess Anne project to build on the aesthetic features of the Lofts project going forward - especially to incorporate masonry design elements on the building exterior, I remain unconvinced that the inclusion of a “de facto” fourth floor is appropriate, especially in relation to other structures in the neighborhood. In their comparison figure on Sheet A307, the applicant demonstrates that the aggregate height of the proposed structure (including rooftop structures) will exceed every building of historic value in the neighborhood except the Purina Tower itself. A new 41-foot-tall building will rival the enormity of the Lofts and create a “big three” effect, a block in which the three tallest buildings will be those most recently constructed. Even with necessary masonry exterior, it’s a trend that is incompatible in context. This “race to the clouds: would imperil the character of the neighborhood, once again placing relatively stark, utilitarian elements such as HVAC units and access doors prominently in the neighborhood skyline. Simply put, this pattern should be explicitly avoided with a strict “three story” maximum. While the question of cars and parking has been mentioned by others in this proceeding, the imperative of providing sufficient space for parking in the new project must be very carefully balanced with the danger of this block being diminished by the near-ubiquitous visual presence of garage doors. The ARB Guidelines indicate that, “parking should be provided in a way that reinforces the existing rhythm and visual aspects of a neighborhood rather than being an obtrusive and incompatible break in the streetscape.” The proposed orientation of the garage openings makes them an overly prominent feature of the 300 Block of Charles. Coexistence between pedestrians and automobiles in the neighborhood is already currently very precarious, and further reinforcing the primacy of cars through the proposed architectural design threatens to tip that balance away from the walkable downtown concept - and more towards the type of suburban car-centric paradigm that downtown denizens often seek to escape. Finally, the proposed mansard roof design does not appropriately complement the roof shapes seen not only in neighboring structures, but in the downtown district writ large. While a pitched design, possibly incorporating dormers, would be more in line with the aesthetic of the Lower Caroline neighborhood, even a parapet design like that seen in the Lofts would be an improvement and would provide sufficient visual consistency to the block. As always, I appreciate the opportunity to submit comments and to participate in this process. I am optimistic that a design that meets the expectations of all stakeholders can be found through dialogue, and I look forward to future iterations of this plan and next steps in the review process. Forrest Wilhoit 307 Princess Anne Street