Architectural Review Board

Architectural Review Board City of Petersburg, Virginia Minutes of the Regular Meeting April 9, 2014 6:00 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall 135 N. Union Street, Petersburg VA 23803 Members Present: Chair, Joe Battiston Vice-Chair, Isaac Ward Mitchell Pradia Theresa Booty Celeste Wynn Gibson Worsham Members Absent: Phillip Arnold Staff: Secretary to the ARB, Kathleen Morgan 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Joe Battiston called to order a regular meeting of the City of Petersburg Architectural Review Board on Wednesday, April 9, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. at Council Chambers, City Hall, 135 N. Union Street, Petersburg, Virginia 23803. 2. THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. REVIEW OF MINUTES The minutes of the March 12, 2014 regular meeting were approved with a motion from Ms. Wynn and a second from Ms. Booty. The motion passed unanimously, with the exception of Mr. Ward abstaining. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Ward moved to have 215 Low Street (j) placed on a consent agenda. The agenda was approved as amended and the consent agenda was approved with a motion from Ms. Booty and a second from Mr. Ward. The motion passed unanimously. 5. PUBLIC INFORMATION PERIOD Chair Battiston opened the Public Information Period to anyone who wished to speak on any subject not on the agenda. No comments during the Public Information Period. Chair Battiston closed the public comment period. 6. CONSENT AGENDA  a. 215 Low Street: Application was approved as submitted with a motion from Ms. Booty and a second from Mr. Ward. The motion passed unanimously. 7. REQUEST(S) FOR CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS a. 601 Grove Avenue: Staff explained the property owner would like to defer the application until she is able to discuss the matter with the tenant. Staff recommended deferring the application. Mr. Ward moved to defer the application, followed by a second from Ms. Wynn. The motion was approved unanimously. b. 313 Grove Avenue: Staff explained the applicant had a family emergency. Staff recommended deferring the application. Mr. Ward moved to defer the application, followed by a second from Ms. Booty. The motion was approved unanimously. c. 11 Centre Hill: The applicant, Al K. Smith, was present. Staff recommended approval of the proposed application. The applicant stated the new porch flooring material would be just on the Centre Hill Court side, the back porch facing North Jefferson is poured concrete. The applicant proposed a black aluminum fence similar to that of Centre Hill Mansion’s. Chair Battiston asked for a picture of the proposed fence; the applicant did not have that available. Mr. Ward asked what the applicant was proposing for the front porch railing. The applicant stated it would be wood and what was there is not original. Staff concurred that what is there was not original. Mr. Ward asked if the applicant had any design for the railing and the fence; the applicant did not have that available. The applicant stated the railing would be close to what it was before. Mr. Ward stated the board would need designs to approve the fencing and the railing for the porch. Ms. Booty asked what the condition of the front porch flooring; the applicant stated it was in poor condition. Mr. Ward asked staff about what was visible from the street in relation to the front porch; if just the ends of the floor boards were visible. Staff confirmed stating that the set back is such that visibility of the porch flooring is very low, but it is evident that there is some warping in the floor boards. Mr. Ward asked that the applicant not move forward with the roof replacement until he provides staff with a sample of the asphalt shingle roof. Mr. Ward asked the board’s opinion about the porch flooring; Ms. Booty stated it is hard to tell how much of the flooring is rotten. Mr. Ward stated the board’s purview ends when something is no longer visible from a public place. Chair Battiston stated he does not prefer the proposed flooring as it would affect the aesthetics of the property. Mr. Ward asked if this was the original porch. Chair Battiston stated he did not know. Staff stated the porch roof was in line with the main roof, suggesting there was a porch there originally. The applicant asked if the board’s main concern with the porch flooring was the appearance. Mr. Ward concurred. Mr. Ward moved to approve the roof replacement contingent upon staff’s approval of a submitted sample, metal storm windows, stucco and window repair in accordance with the National Park Service (NPS) Preservation Briefs  and defer the porch flooring, fence, gate and railing followed by a second from Ms. Wynn. The motion was approved unanimously. d. 702-08 Harrison Street: The applicant, Al K. Smith, was present. Staff recommended approval of the proposed application with the exception of deferring the alley and rear access portion of the application, as well as the roofing material unless the applicant brings a sizeable sample and more information on the product. Ms. Booty thought there was an existing handicapped access on the left portion of the front porch. Chair Battiston stated the rear access and the fence would be deferred. Mr. Ward asked about the sample material for the roof. Ms. Booty asked what the warranty on the roof would be, and the applicant stated 30 years. Chair Battiston stated his opinion was to defer the roof replacement until a sufficient sample was presented; Ms. Booty agreed saying that slate will last a very long time. Mr. Ward would like a more detailed design of the handicapped ramp. Chair Battiston suggested providing the handicapped access in the rear, as to not disrupt the aesthetics of the primary elevation but also meeting ADA requirements. Mr. Ward requested a design for the balustrade as well as the front porch rails. Mr. Ward moved to defer the application except for the repair of the windows followed by a second from Mr. Pradia. The motion was approved unanimously. e. 712 Harrison Street: The applicant, Al K. Smith, was present. Staff recommended approval of the proposed application with the exception of deferring the alley and rear access portion of the application, as well as the Hardiplank siding until the condition of the wood siding is able to be determined. Chair Battiston asked if the proposed deck was visible from the street. The applicant stated the deck was on the north side of the building. Chair Battiston questioned if the deck was in the board’s purview, which is unclear at the moment due to the uncertainty of the alley access. Mr. Ward moved to approve the repair of the existing windows, removal of the asbestos siding but not the wood siding (to be evaluated after the asbestos is removed), the roof to be painted red with color verified by staff followed by a second from Ms. Wynn. The motion was approved unanimously. f. 623A Harrison Street: The applicant, Al K. Smith, was present. Staff recommends deferral of the proposed application until a structural engineer has deemed the building not suitable for rehabilitation and until it has officially joined with the adjoining parcel. Chair Battiston asked how much space was between this property and the property to the south. The applicant did not have a definite answer, but it is less than two feet. Chair Battiston asked staff who would be responsible to obtain the structural engineer; staff replied the applicant or the owner. Mr. Pradia asked why staff is recommending a structural engineer report for this property and not the city properties proposed for demolition last year. Staff responded that the city properties this year will receive the same recommendation, and that no precedence was set—each is a case by case basis. Ms. Booty asked if the city has issued any violations; the applicant stated the  building has been red tagged. Chair Battiston stated he would like to make a site visit. Ms. Booty stated she has visited the property and has her opinion. Mr. Worsham stated these shotgun structures are rare. Staff stated the engineer report was suggested to justify the demolition of contributing structures, as in most instances there is no written record of the condition of buildings that are demolished. Mr. Worsham asked is the City responsible for documenting the buildings before they are demolished. Staff responded the City could produce photographs but would ask the owner to produce measured drawings. Mr. Worsham moved to defer the application until site visits were made. Ms. Booty stated she would like to see an engineer’s report. Ms. Wynn seconded the motion to defer the application. The motion passed unanimously. g. 625-27 Harrison Street: The applicant, Al K. Smith, was present. Staff recommended approval of the proposed application with the condition that the applicant come back with a more detailed plan of how to approach the aluminum/wood siding. Chair Battiston stated that the alley situation needs to be clarified. Chair Battiston asked if the front only had the aluminum; the applicant agreed. Chair Battiston asked if the applicant would consider repairing the wood siding on the other sides of the building, removing the aluminum siding and repairing the wood beneath it. The applicant stated that most of the building still has the aluminum. Chair Battiston states that vinyl siding would not be permitted, but once the aluminum is removed the board would have to look at the possibility of more suitable materials or retaining the wood that is existing. The applicant clarified that he was proposing to repair the aluminum and use salvaged aluminum siding for the portions where siding was missing. Ms. Wynn asked if the dormer was supposed to be a window; the applicant stated that originally it was probably a window. Mr. Worsham said it undoubtedly had a window, but it was boarded up when the aluminum siding was installed. Mr. Ward stated that the porch soffits needed repair; Mr. Worsham asked if the applicant would be retaining the posts and columns; the applicant stated he would repair the existing posts and the soffits. Mr. Ward stated that if another gutter system were to be proposed, as opposed to repairing the built in gutters, it would need approval. Chair Battiston asked if the applicant had decided on a roof paint color; the applicant stated he was going to propose a red roof and submit a sample to staff. Mr. Ward moved to approve the repair of the soffits, windows, aluminum siding, porch columns, and the metal roofs to be painted red once a color sample is presented to staff followed by a second from Mr. Pradia. The motion was approved unanimously. h. 212 S. Jones Street: The applicant, Danielle Powell, was present. Staff recommended deferral of the proposed application until a structural engineer has deemed the building not suitable for rehabilitation. Mr. Hines, the Building Official, stated that this demolition is a part of Operation Renew. The Army conducts the demolition and uses big machinery; once a machine is on site, the City tries to keep the demolitions within a close proximity to reduce the need to take down power lines and make other infrastructure adjustments. The demolitions are at a very low cost to the City. Mr. Hines continues to state that owners have the opportunity to present an abatement plan to the City. Ms. Powell, the applicant, states that in order for the National Guard to contribute to this program, the area has to have an element of crime. Mr. Worsham asks if there is a standard for historic buildings in which the City might not consider a property because it is historically significant; Mr. Hines states that there is no standard based on historic significance, for him it is a safety and crime issue. Mr. Worsham states that Jones Street is of major significance for African-American history and that structures like this barely exist anymore. Ms. Booty asks how feasible is it to salvage materials from the demolished buildings; Mr. Hines states that it is a liability for people to enter these buildings. Ms. Powell states that the letters property owners receive from the City Manager’s office; owners have 30 days to respond with an abatement plan or the property will be presented to Council for spot blight abatement. Ms. Powell states that the owner called her office stating that he has no interest in putting any money into fixing the property or even demolishing the property. Mr. Hines states the back portion is collapsing. Mr. Worsham asks how it could be coordinated to record and document these properties. Chair Battiston asks how bad the property is; Ms. Booty responds stating that it is in pretty bad condition. Chair Battiston asks what does Ms. Booty see that makes her conclude it is in bad shape; Ms. Booty responds with now that she sees pictures she thinks she might be confused with 623A Harrison Street. Chair Battiston asks if this is something that could be postponed to the next meeting because he would like to go make a site visit; Mr. Hines states it can be postponed. The applicant reiterates that the owner has no intentions of doing anything to the property. Ms. Booty asks if the City funds the demolition since the owner will still own the property once it is demolished; Mr. Hines states a tax lien is placed on the property once the demolition is completed. Mr. Pradia asks if the applicant has a statement from the owner stating he is not interested in working on the property. The applicant states she does not but has asked the owner for a written statement. Staff states that if the board wanted to go together to make site visits, a public notice would have to be posted. Ms. Booty states she believes there should be something from a structural engineer stating the properties are not salvageable. Mr. Hines states he does not have it in his budget to get a structural engineer for each property, if they are very significant he will go elsewhere, but it makes sense to do the properties that are close together. Ms. Powell states that although a property could be put up for sale so that someone may purchase it, there is not guarantee that it will be purchased and the property could continue to decline. She states she is currently dealing with an owner of a property who has had his property on the market for 14 years; she asks that the board keep that in mind. Mr. Worsham states that one should hang on to historic properties as long as it’s feasible and safe in hopes that they will be redeveloped; Mr. Hines states that these properties are not safe. Mr. Worsham moved to defer the application and to form a committee to make site visits of this property as well as other historic properties on the list for Operation Renew followed by a second from Ms. Wynn. The motion was approved unanimously.  i. 216 S. Jones Street: The applicant, Danielle Powell, was present. Staff recommended deferral of the proposed application until a structural engineer has deemed the building not suitable for rehabilitation. Ms. Powell stated the justification is the same as it was for 212 S. Jones Street. The applicant stated the back of the property is collapsing. Mr. Hines stated the property has extensive water damage. Chair Battiston asks if staff would mind being in attendance when site visits are made. Staff responded that she would be in attendance. Mr. Worsham moved to defer the application and to form a committee to make site visits of this property as well as other historic properties on the list for Operation Renew followed by a second from Mr. Pradia. The motion was approved unanimously. 8. OLD BUSINESS 9. NEW BUSINESS a. Administrative Approval: Staff would like approval to administratively approve repair and replacement of materials that are of the same material, form, size, and shape. Staff would also like to administratively approve signage; staff would also like to be able to administratively approve COA renewals. Mr. Ward states that previous boards have approved applications that the current board may not approve. Mr. Ward states that anything staff feels might be controversial, staff could bring the application to the board. Chair Battiston clarifies that each renewal should be addressed individually. Mr. Ward states administrative approvals should be consulted with the City Attorney. Mr. Ward states that there was a question in the past if administrative approvals were allowable per the zoning ordinance or the bylaws. Mr. Worsham asks if staff could produce a consent agenda in the case administrative approval is not allowed; staff replied that she is happy to be proactive about producing the consent agenda. Staff states the attorney definitely needs to be consulted in moving forward. Chair Battiston states for the board to make motions on the administrative approvals, so that if the attorney says it is okay staff can go ahead with the approvals. i. Mr. Ward moved to allow staff to administratively approve signage followed by a second from Ms. Wynn. The motion was approved unanimously. ii. Mr. Ward moved to allow staff to administratively approve paint colors followed by a second from Ms. Wynn. The motion was approved unanimously. iii. Mr. Ward moved to allow staff to administratively approve COA renewals with the condition that if there are any questions, staff bring the renewal to the board followed by a second from Mr. Pradia. Mr. Gibson moved to treat renewals as new applications followed by a second from Ms. Booty. The motion fails 2-4. Chair Battiston called a voted for Mr. Ward’s motion. The motion passed 4-2 with Ms. Booty and Mr. Worsham opposing.  iv. Mr. Ward moved to allow staff to administratively approve fencing followed by a second from Ms. Wynn. The motion passed 5-1 with Ms. Booty opposing. v. The description of in-kind repair to mean the replacement material is identical in material, size, shape and form. Mr. Worsham moved to allow staff to administratively approve in-kind repairs followed by a second with Mr. Ward. The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Booty asked if administrative approvals could be presented at board meetings. Staff had no problem presenting administrative approvals. b. NACA (Neighborhood Assistance Cooperation of America): Ms. Wynn shared information on NACA and the news that they are opening an office in Richmond. It is a group who helps homeowners with mortgages and renovation loans. Staff will look into the organization to see what they can do to help Petersburg residents. c. Drawings, Specifications, Pictures: Ms. Booty asked what could be done to make sure applicants have drawings. Mr. Ward asked if staff could be stricter with application requirements and help guide the applicant until they have enough documentation to be placed on the agenda. Staff stated they would better vet applicants moving forward. d. Saucy’s BBQ: Mr. Pradia asked about the shipping container temporary COA. Staff stated they have a COA for the building, but staff would look into the temporary COA for the shipping container. Mr. Pradia clarifies that he wishes there was a mechanism in place to be reminded of temporary COAs. 10. WORK SESSION 11. ADJOURNMENT With there being no further business, the meeting was adjourned by a motion from Mr. Worsham and a second by Mr. Pradia. The motion passed unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned at 9:03 p.m.