Board of Historic & Architectural Review

Board of Historic and Architectural Review Special Meeting August 24, 2023 Portlock Galleries at SoNo 3815 Bainbridge Blvd, Chesapeake, VA 23324 5:30 PM A. Call To Order B. Roll Call C. New Business 1. Special Meeting to Discuss Design Guideline Update D. Adjournment These applications and related documents are available for public review on the Planning Department’s website through the following link: https://www.cityofchesapeake.net/AgendaCenter/Board-of-Historic- Architectural-Review-4 The City of Chesapeake will provide reasonable accommodations and services necessary for sensory- impaired and disabled persons by contacting the Facilities Maintenance Administrator, Public Works at (757) 382-8951 at least three-working days in advance and language assistance to individuals with limited English proficiency to the extent possible by contacting the Planning Department at (757) 382-6176 at least 10 days in advance of this meeting. *While this is not a public hearing, the public and any one or several members of the Chesapeake City Council may choose to attend. Topics 1. New Construction a. Finished floor height b. Crawlspace vs slab c. Design to replace lost house or unique d. Corner lots improved design 2. Substitute and Replacement Materials a. Windows i. Affordability ii. Wood vs vinyl? iii. Sash dimensions b. Doors i. Match original in District c. Railings, balusters, spindles i. Match existing required 3. Fences a. Vinyl 4. Trim a. Covering damaged wood with vinyl b. Wrapping soffits i. Match existing detail in District c. Quality 5. Gutters a. Half round gutters = standard 6. Driveways a. Ribbon width b. Requirements to submit (survey/site plan) c. Only where there is inadequate space? 7. Mailboxes, house numbers, historic markers a. Currently no guidelines 8. Metal Roofs a. Mandatory? b. 22 Gauge 9. Accessory Structures a. Sheds - height 10. Solar Panels 11. Economic factors a. Flush out 12. Handicap Ramps a. Aluminum 13. Appendixes a. C – Approved Fence Chart b. E – Basic Maintenance “Advice” c. F – Definitions and Terms  Meeting Minutes Historic and Architectural Review Board (HARB) December 1, 2022 Public Safety Operations Center ROLL CALL HARB Members Present: Vice Chair Marilee Peterson, Frank Lilley, and Ellsworth Spicher Staff: Joshua Johnson, Legal Counsel – City Attorney’s Office; Pamela Witham, Code Compliance Inspector 3 – Development and Permits; Marvin Hodges, Senior Planner – Planning Department; Nathaniel McCormick, Community Design Manager – Planning Department; and Kevin Finn, Recording Secretary – Planning Department. Vice Chair M. Peterson called the meeting to order at 5:32 p.m. MINUTES Approval of November 3, 2022 regular meeting minutes, motion to approve minutes made by E. Spicher and seconded by F. Lilley, all members present voting for. Approval of November 17, 2022 emergency meeting minutes, motion to approve minutes made by F. Lilley and seconded by M. Peterson, all members present voting for. COMMITTEE REPORTS None ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS K. Finn reported three (3) administrative approvals. ZONING REPORT None OLD AND NEW BUSINESS K. Finn provided the Board with a summary of the intention of the December 1st meeting, stating that it will serve as one of the many opportunities for the Board to provide their comments on the South Norfolk Historic and Cultural Preservation Overlay District Design and Procedural Guidelines (Guidelines) and the upcoming update. Prior to the meeting, K. Finn had requested the Board submit a list of discussion topics and that the Board would spend some time tonight elaborating on their submitted topics. K. Finn informed the Board that the Planning Department is in the early stages of acquiring a consultant to assist in the review and update to the Guidelines and that the project would be led by Nathaniel McCormick, who introduced himself to the Board. K. Finn reiterated to the Board that these areas of focus would be provided to the consultant, allowing them to explore best practices that could be integrated and adapted to the unique architecture and nature of the South Norfolk. The first topic discussed was new construction projects within the Historic District, which has been an expressed concern of residents and the Board for several years. Initial comments from the Board, led by M. Peterson, discussed providing more specific information and requirements for finished floor height, building height, massing, setbacks, and other factors that contribute to the overall compatibility of structures with the neighborhood’s character. F. Lilley discussed the need to improve the review of new builds, both during the application and construction phase as well as requesting the consultant explore ways to integrate improved design elements into new construction, especially for those on corner lots. E. Spicher raised interest in the development of a pattern book, one similar to those used in Norfolk. K. Finn introduced the second topic of discussion with the Board, the use of substitute and replacement materials. This typically includes the replacement of historic or original materials and elements with more modern materials. Primary examples within the Historic District include wooden windows being replaced with vinyl ones or a metal roof being replaced by an architectural shingle roof. E. Spicher expressed the desire to explore how to better incorporate assistance programs, such as those provided by the City though tax abatement or the Chesapeake Land Bank Authority, into the Guidelines. 1 Additionally, a concern over the affordability and availability of historic materials was raised and the Planning staff felt this could be a topic explored by the consultant. K. Finn raised a point submitted by Gerald Martin, who was not in attendance, regarding the preservation of historic trim. E. Spicher requested the consultant review Appendix C – Approved Fences for the compatibility and applicability of some of the included options. K. Finn mentioned that similar charts could be developed for other architectural elements such as doors. F. Lilley requested that half round gutters be required. M. Peterson included a request to include guidelines and require a COA for mailboxes, house numbers, and historic markers. K. Finn requested F. Lilley further explain his submitted comment regarding ribbon driveway. F. Lilley stated his concern was lot coverage, where a driveway would take up a significant portion of a front yard which is uncharacteristic of the Historic District. F. Lilley also expressed the desire to better integrate rear alleys as alternatives to driveways located in the front of the property. In the discussion of solar panels, K. Finn mentioned that a consultant would explore alternatives or solutions utilized by other localities in integrating solar panels into their Historic Districts. E. Spicher suggested ground-mounted solar as an option with the proper screening. F. Lilley raised the point of incorporating “solar-friendly” designs into new construction, suggesting that gable roofs where every side is not visible from the street may be a solution as solar panel applications become more popular. M. Peterson stated that “visible from the paved public street” should include the assumption that all surrounding trees will eventually be removed. E. Spicher discussed the section on handicap ramps needs to be expanded to include metal ramps and their proper shielding. F. Lilley added the inclusion of temporary ramps to be removed once they are no longer needed. P. Witham added she would like to have the review of handicap ramps, which are temporary in nature, be allowed to go through administrative review by the Planning Department given an applicant may have an urgent need for one. K. Finn reiterated that Appendix B - Historic District Zoning Review Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) Approval Contributing and Non- Contributing Matrix will be reviewed by the consultant and that changes are likely to be made. F. Lilley concluded the conversation of requesting chimneys be integrated into the new construction requirements. K. Finn informed that Board that incorporating many of these requests can be made but there needs to be an equal effort in the enforcement of the Guidelines. CONSENT AGENDA None REGULAR AGENDA None PUBLIC INPUT None LEGAL GUIDANCE None ADJOURNMENT: M. Peterson adjourned the meeting. Meeting adjourned at 7:07 PM MEETING MINUTES APPROVED: __1/5/2023_____ 2 City staff invited Chesapeake Historic Preserva�on Commission (HPC) to consider the current South Norfolk Historic and Cultural Preservation Overlay District Design and Procedural Guidelines and make sugges�ons on how the Guidelines may be improved. The Guidelines were discussed periodically during HPC’s regularly scheduled mee�ngs beginning in December 2021. The below recommenda�ons have been made and recorded in the HPC mee�ng minutes, they are presented in chronological order. Edits have been made from the accepted minutes for conciseness. December 9, 2021 City staff reported that the last comprehensive review of guidelines took place in 2016. There is a desire to address new infill construc�on guidelines, a�er-the-fact fees, emergency mee�ng procedures, porch roofs, clarifica�on of minor repairs, snap-in mun�ns, and solar panels. Commissioner Taduran suggested a restructuring of the guidelines document so that it clearly describes first, the procedures expected of the property owner when approaching the board to receive a Certificate of Appropriateness. Second, a description of what is considered acceptable by the board. Third, directions on how property owners may access various forms of funding to assist in completing exterior work. Lastly, the philosophy behind the formation of the district and the board. Commissioner Wallace agreed that the guidelines could benefit from a more pragmatic approach. She also suggested more robust citations and definitions, especially when considering terms like community. Commissioner Martin, who serves on both HPC and HARB, listed several issues he believed should be addressed during the review: i. Aesthetic qualities should never supersede safety and wellness concerns ii. Ribbon driveway specifications regarding minimum length and width iii. Recommenda�ons for contras�ng panel and trim paint colors to make architectural features and details appear more prominent iv. List of HARB recommended contractors to execute work Parks Planner Ana Elezovic suggested that the document describing grants and other funding be separate from the design guidelines. An external reference on funding can be more easily maintained according to date-specific and/or temporary grants. February 10, 2022 Commissioner Knight suggested the guidelines include language reflec�ng what is required by realtors when brokering property sales within the South Norfolk Historic District. She is concerned that a lack of awareness when people purchase their homes may contribute to their frustra�ons when undergoing the Cer�ficate of Approval process. She inquired if the City Atorney’s office could be consulted about disclosure requirements. Commissioner Wallace proposed that a resource specific to builders execu�ng in-fill new construc�on be included in the revised guidelines. Commissioner Mar�n said that he would like to see a “pre-design” commitee on HARB. This group would aid property owners in managing or nego�a�ng compliance with the guidelines before a formal, completed COA is brought to the full board. This concept is modeled a�er the City of  Portsmouth’s Historic Preserva�on Commission, which includes in the COA process a pre- applica�on conference with Planning Department staff. Pamela Witham, Code Compliance Inspector III of the Developments and Permits Department, suggested that the revised guidelines be more stringent. She believes the guidelines should be writen so that real estate developers could not be considered eligible for the “hardship” clause when comple�ng work on proper�es within the district. She also suggested that the guidelines include informa�on for property owners to use the local deed office as a resource when researching their homes. March 10, 2022 Commissioner Wallace asked if there was a precedent for a working group to address specific sec�ons of the guidelines. A�er discussion, it was determined that informal study groups of no more than 3 commissioners may be formed, according to future needs, to consider assigned topics and report their findings to the full commission. Commissioner Mar�n said that he does not think the new guidelines should not include a patern book for infill or new construc�on. He believes the HARB should con�nue to review those requests on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Mar�n also suggested that the guidelines should address the emerging issues of underground u�lity enclosures. As these “green boxes” are installed they are changing the character of the neighborhood, but they could offer an opportunity for public art. August 11, 2022 Commissioner Martin suggested that revised guidelines include a maintenance provision similar to a section included in Portsmouth’s Truxton Historic District Guidelines, Appendix C “Maintenance Checklist” Other commissioners expressed support for Commissioner Martin’s suggestion. Staff expressed concern about the HARB’s ability to enforce any such provision as well as the property owner’s costs associated with executing specific maintenance tasks as seen in the Truxton example. September 8, 2022 Planner II Kevin Finn shared some other topics that HARB intends to be addressed during the review of the Guidelines: i. Handicap ramps, par�cularly metal styles would be visible from the public right-of-way. Vice Chair Wallace and PRT Planning Administrator Ana Elezovic advocated that accessibility takes precedence over aesthe�cs in the revised guidelines. ii. Mailbox design, more post mount mailboxes have appeared throughout the district as opposed to the wall-mount mailboxes that were the predominant style during the South Norfolk district’s era of significance, 1890-1937. iii. Solar Panels seem to be growing in popularity across the district. The revised guidelines will need to strike a balance between maintaining the historic character and property owners’ desire to u�lize this technology. Vice Chair Wallace expressed a desire for the revised guidelines to consider structural inequi�es that may have been perpetuated via public policies systema�zing historic preserva�on efforts. October 13, 2022 The Commission discussed a variety of topics that they hope to be addressed during the review of the Guidelines: i. New infill construction within the district. ii. Revised description of Certificate of Appropriateness procedure so property owners within the district may better understand the review process. iii. Potential resources for property owners who may not be able to execute maintenance tasks or repairs due to limited mobility and/or fixed income. iv. Integrating the concept of community well-being into the revised Guidelines.