Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Façade Alteration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ARB denies wood veneer on Prince Edward building; approves signage with mortar‑joint mounting
Summary
The ARB denied a proposal to install a continuous wood veneer over historic brick at 102 Prince Edward Street because covering original brick would obscure character‑defining automobile‑era features; the board approved two signs for the tenant subject to nonpenetrating masonry attachment through mortar joints.
The Fredericksburg Architectural Review Board voted on May 12 to deny a proposal to install a continuous wood veneer across the Prince Edward Street elevation of a 1919 brick commercial building, while approving the applicant’s requested signage provided the signs are attached through mortar joints rather than drilled into brick faces.
Kate Schwartz presented COA 2504‑0116 and recommended against covering the brick facing with an applied tongue‑and‑groove wood veneer. The board’s discussion focused on the building’s historic significance: multiple board members and Historic Fredericksburg Foundation representative Danae Peckler emphasized the structure’s origin as a 1919 motor company showroom and its character‑defining brick surrounds and concrete garage‑bay surrounds.
Applicant Jesse Kemp, who intends to operate a wellness facility called Element Contrast Studio in three contiguous bays, argued the design would create a distinct storefront that highlights the garage bays and that the veneer would be attached with sleepers over mortar joints so the original brick underneath would not be irreparably altered. He cited nearby modernized façades and recent precedents on William Street as context for a contemporary intervention.
Board members and staff raised concerns about moisture trapping, the proposed installation method (attachment and drainage behind veneer), long‑term maintenance of thermally treated wood, potential irreversible damage to the original yellow brick, and the importance of preserving the visual continuity of the historic masonry. Several members suggested alternatives such as far smaller, reversible paneling that preserves visible brick features rather than covering the entire bay.
After deliberation, the board voted to deny the request to install a wood veneer on the Prince Edward elevation, citing inconsistency with city code 72‑23.1.d.2 (distinctive features to be treated sensitively). The motion to deny carried 7‑0. Separately, the board approved the signage (a projecting aluminum composite sign and a flat brushed‑aluminum wall sign) on condition that any fasteners into masonry are located in mortar joints rather than brick faces; that motion also carried 7‑0.
The applicant was advised to consult further with staff about reversible alternatives that would preserve the original masonry and to coordinate on appropriate attachment details for the approved signage.
