Architectural Review Board

Architectural Review Board City of Petersburg, Virginia Minutes of the Regular Meeting May 14, 2014 6:00 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall 135 N. Union Street, Petersburg VA 23803 Members Present: Chair, Joe Battiston Mitchell Pradia Theresa Booty Celeste Wynn Gibson Worsham Members Absent: Vice-Chair, Isaac Ward 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, May 14, 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 April 9, 2014 regular meeting were approved with a motion from Mr. Ward and a second from Mr. Worsham. The motion passed unanimously. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Ms. Wynn made a motion to move 531 Grove Avenue (b) to the regular agenda followed by a second from Mr. Pradia. 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. Arthur Capuano spoke about his property on Mercer Street. Chair Battiston explained that the board may help a property owner make decisions for the exterior of their property but not financing. Mr. Capuano asked at what point he would need to come to the board; Chair Battiston stated prior to any work unless it was a basic repair of existing materials. Mr. Worsham stated that staff is available to assist Mr. Capuano. Staff stated they are available 8:30 to 5:00 p.m. With no other comments, Chair Battiston closed the Public Information  Period. 6. REQUEST(S) FOR CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS Consent Agenda: a. 849 W. High Street: The application was approved as submitted with a motion from Mr. Worsham and a second from Ms. Wynn. Ms. Booty abstained, and the motion passed unanimously. Regular Agenda: b. 531 Grove Avenue: The applicant, Joe Dunovant, was present. Staff recommended approval of the proposed application. The applicant stated that with the park at the end of Squaw Alley, the road is getting more traffic, and he would like the fence to provide more privacy. Chair Battiston asked where the main water line was located. Mr. Dunovant stated the water line was located across the street—on the east side of Squaw Alley. Ms. Booty asked if the applicant had to go to Code Compliance for set backs. Staff stated that as far as zoning is concerned, the applicant is in compliance and Mr. Dunovant will have the appropriate conversations with Code Compliance when necessary. Chair Battiston asked for comment from anyone in favor of the proposed application. There were no comments. Chair Battiston asked for comment from anyone in opposition of the proposed application. Michael Edwards spoke in opposition of the proposed application. He stated that he is an heir to the house on Squaw Alley. Mr. Edwards stated that the previous owner had a fence that ran even with the house. Mr. Edwards also stated his concern with the 7 foot height. Mr. Edwards stated that a property in the 600 block of Grove Avenue recently installed a fence with a height of 3.5 feet where visible from the street then became 7 feet once the fence was not visible from the street. Chair Battiston stated that was not in the purview of the ARB, that would be a question that should be directed to Code Compliance and Zoning. Mr. Edwards restated his concern. Mr. Worsham stated that his concern could not be addressed by this board. Mr. Edwards stated that he is basing his concern off of what he has seen with the recent fence at the 600 block of Grove Avenue. Chair Battiston stated it could have been that property owner’s personal choice as it relates to the height of the fence. Mr. Edwards restated his opposition to the fence. A member of the public asked if she could speak in favor of the proposed application. Chair Battiston gave her permission to do so. Carnelia Hewlett spoke in favor of the proposed application. Ms. Hewlett stated that she understood the need for safety with the existing traffic. Ms. Hewlett stated that as long as the fence was in keeping with the historic beauty of the district, she  supports its installation. Chair Battiston called the question. Ms. Booty stated she was still unclear of where the fence was being installed. The applicant stated their current fence stopped at their survey line. Mr. Dunovant stated the proposed fence is about 5 feet off the alley beyond the existing landscaping and survey line. Mr. Worsham moved to approve the application as proposed, followed by a second from Ms. Booty. The motion was approved unanimously. c. 313 Grove Avenue: The applicant, Carnelia Hewlett, was present. Staff recommended approval of the proposed application. Chair Battiston asked the applicant if the railing would be painted; Ms. Hewlett stated the intention was to paint them but she wanted to wait until the application was approved. Chair Battiston suggested waiting about 6 months until painting the railings. Mr. Pradia asked who completed the work; the applicant stated someone who they consider to be a professional. Ms. Hewlett stated that the railings there are mainly for the safety of their children. Ms. Hewlett stated they do have plans to do more to the home, but now they know to come to the ARB before doing any work. Mr. Pradia moved to approve the application as proposed, followed by a second from Ms. Wynn. The motion was approved unanimously. d. 324 Grove Avenue: The applicant, Isabel A. Jones, was present. Staff recommended approval of the proposed application with the exception of the awning. The applicant stated she had met with staff a few times. Ms. Jones stated the window on the west side gets very hot, which is why she would like the awning to help provide shade. Chair Battiston asked if the shutters were wood; the applicant replied yes, the shutters are wooden louvered shutters. Mr. Worsham asked if the shutters were substantial and custom built; staff replied yes the shutters were substantial. Mr. Worsham stated that he interprets the guidelines in that this case is the replacement of shutters. He stated that the shutters should be installed to be operable and not nailed down but set on hinges. Mr. Worsham also stated that there’s no reason to believe that awnings did not exist, they just haven’t lasted because they are mainly canvas. He asked if the applicant is intending to install a canvas awning; Ms. Jones replied yes the awning will be canvas. Mr. Pradia asked if the awning would be going on only one window; Ms. Jones stated yes the second story window on the west side and shutters will be on the window below it. Mr. Worsham asked why a gray awning; Ms. Jones stated she spoke with staff about the color and staff suggested gray. Staff stated different options were discussed and it was the opinion of staff that gray was the best. Mr. Worsham suggested a green awning; stating that green is a historic color for awnings. Ms. Booty stated the gray awning would match the roof. Mr. Pradia mentioned an interior window treatment instead of an awning. Ms. Jones stated it is difficult to access the window from the inside due to the stair configuration. Mr. Pradia went on to discuss an installation of interior shutters that once installed could be permanently configured to shield the sun at  any degree. Mr. Worsham stated that awnings are a historically accurate way to deal with exposure to the sun. Ms. Booty quoted the guidelines which state, “Standard sloped fabric awnings…are appropriate for most historic buildings, both residential and commercial” (10-1). Mr. Worsham moved to approve the installation of shutters on a traditional cast iron hinge, hanging them to be functional and painted white followed by a second from Ms. Booty. The motion was approved unanimously. Ms. Wynn moved to approve the request for the gray, canvas awning in accordance with the guidelines followed by a second from Mr. Worsham. The motion was approved. Mr. Pradia and Chair Battiston voted in opposition. e. 308 & 310 N. West Street: The applicant, Amy H. Wilson, was present. Staff recommended denial of the proposed application. The applicant stated the previous owner attempted to rehab portions of the building but found it was increasingly prohibitive due to the condition of the building. Ms. Wilson stated she does not feel safe entering the building. Ms. Wilson stated the building adjacent to her property was taken down by the City. Ms. Wilson stated that it was her plan to demolish the property to help improve the neighborhood. The applicant stated she did discuss with staff on whether or not to hire a structural engineer. Chair Battiston asked if the property were to come down, would the applicant have any interest in salvaging any of the historic material in the event new construction does occur on that site. The applicant stated yes, if possible she would be interested in salvaging materials for new construction or other properties she owns. Ms. Wilson stated that would they would like to do first is look at renovation possibilities. Chair Battiston stated that the owner has the ability to preserve and salvage parts of the building while the if the City were to take the property down, that option would not be available. The applicant stated that she also owns the property at 903 W. High Street and would be applying for a COA for that property as well, with the intention to use materials from the N. West Street properties to rehab 903 W. High Street. She stated her first priority is complying with the Notice of Violation. Mr. Worsham asked the applicant if she purchased the property with the intent to rehab the building; the applicant stated they were hoping to be able to rehab the property but purchased it with the understanding that it may not be structurally sound. Mr. Worsham stated it sounds like staff believes the back part is the not sound and the front portion may be sound. Mr. Pradia asked where most of the rotted wood was, whether it was the front or back. The applicant stated that the rot was primarily at the rear. The applicant also stated that there was some rot on the interior specifically with the flooring. Mr. Pradia stated that he does not see any sagging in the roof and that is a good sign that there are still some good bones in the building. Mr. Pradia stated that he is opposed to approving the application because he does not believe that all avenues have been pursued at this point. Mr. Pradia stated alternatives being selling the property or getting costs for rehabilitation. Ms. Wynn stated it seems a majority of the wood damage is to the rear. Mr. Worsham stated that the goal of the ARB is to protect the integrity of the historic district, and every time a building is lost it is a huge damage to the integrity of the historic district. He stated that it is the mission of the ARB to try to come up with a solution to save the buildings that are proposed for demolition. Mr. Worsham stated that if the building is sound, that this might be a good project to utilize the tax credits. Mr. Worsham stated that there are some buildings that need to be demolished, but he is not sure that this property is one of them. Chair Battiston asked what the applicant’s timeline is in relation to the Notice of Violation. The applicant quoted the letter stating she was 30 days to present a plan to either abate or demolish the building. Mr. Worsham suggested the applicant discuss stabilization with the building officials. He suggested removing the rotten parts and sealing what is left. The applicant asks what would be approved as far as replacements of siding and windows are concerned. Mr. Worsham said the board would be anxious to work with her to ensure the building is saved. Ms. Booty stated there are three layers of siding on the building that need to be removed to get down to the original siding, which is what the board would want to see. Ms. Booty stated the front of the building is sound, the front porch rails are not original and she walked around the site. Ms. Booty stated that she recently purchased a home near this property and part of preserving neighborhoods in Petersburg is demolishing some of the buildings that are decreasing property values for other people. Ms. Booty stated there is damage in the back of the property and the back is open and smells of urine. Ms. Booty asked the applicant how long it had been in this condition; the applicant stated she did not know. Ms. Booty asked how long the applicant had owned the property; the applicant responded she had owned the property a little under a year. Ms. Wilson asked why the building adjacent to hers came down; Mr. Hines, Building Official, responded it was in imminent danger of collapse. Chair Battiston stated that vinyl siding was not permitted in a historic district; the board would be looking to restore the wood siding on the house and replace the rotted portions with wood siding of the same dimensions. Chair Battiston stated that the windows would need to be wood or aluminum clad as well as have simulated divided lights. Mr. Worsham stated that if it was between demolition and saving the house, the board might be willing to work with the property owner. Chair Battiston and Ms. Wynn stated that vinyl would not be a compromise the board should make. Mr. Worsham stated that the mission of the board was to save as many buildings as they can and the board would love to see it saved. Chair Battiston asked the applicant the time frame to respond to the City. Ms. Williams stated upon receiving the letter, she immediately emailed staff about a month ago who suggested they meet. The applicant shared information on log homes with the staff; Chair Battiston stated the board had received the information on the log homes. Mr. Worsham stated that he authored a pattern book for the Battersea district, although not officially endorsed by the City. He suggested the applicant draw inspiration from the existing buildings in the neighborhood for the basis of a new building. Chair Battiston asked for public comment. Willie Graham stated that the board should not be advocating for demolition of contributing buildings in a historic  district. Mr. Graham stated that when the board approved the demolition of buildings in a historic district last year, that set a bad precedent. Mr. Graham stated that if need be, council should be the body to approve a demolition and the ARB should protect the buildings. Mr. Graham stated that buildings should not be able to get into this kind of condition in the first place; the ARB has a preventative maintenance clause as does the City, he stated. Mr. Graham stated that he could tell from the street that this building is not in that bad of shape. Mr. Graham stated that the roof would be sagging, foundation would be cracked; there would be signs that the building is not sound and this building does not have those signs. Mr. Graham also stated that the board should not advocate the stripping of historic materials to use on other buildings; he stated that is bad preservation practice. Mr. Graham stated that others have to follow the guidelines enforced by the ARB and he would not advocate the use of vinyl siding. Mr. Graham stated that it is unfortunate that the board is allowing the use of aluminum clad windows; he stated they degrade the character of the historic district. Mr. Graham stated the log home was not right for the historic district; that new construction needs to be similar to the materials, massing and form of the existing buildings in the historic district. Mr. Graham stated he does not oppose the removal of the non-original rear additions and the non-historic siding, but to remove the historic siding, windows, and porch would remove the building of its character. He stated he will be presenting a property soon that is in much worse condition, and he would like to board’s help in protecting their resource as well as the ones the City will be bringing forward in the historic districts. Mr. Worsham moved to deny the proposed application until there is some evidence that the building is structurally unsound, followed by a second from Ms. Wynn. The motion passed unanimously. f. 319 E. Fillmore Street: The applicant, Celeste Wynn, was present. Ms. Wynn did recuse herself. Staff recommended deferral until more information on the fence design was presented. Ms. Wynn stated the fence she is proposing is also known as a “peek-a-boo” fence that is 4 feet high. She would like to install a typical picket fence but place pickets on the opposite side, in-between the pickets so that it looks finished on both sides. Chair Battiston asked the applicant if she intended to paint the fence. Ms. Wynn stated she knows she has to wait about a year to paint since she is using pressure treated wood. After referencing the guidelines, Mr. Worsham referenced the guidelines and stated that unpainted wood fences are inappropriate. Chair Battiston reiterated that Ms. Wynn does have up to a year to decide a color. Ms. Wynn asked if she could come back to present a paint color. Mr. Worsham moved to approve the application as submitted with the condition that the paint color is presented and approved by staff, followed by a second from Mr. Pradia. The motion passed unanimously. g. 406 High Street: The applicant, Willie Graham, was present. Staff recommended approval of the proposed application with the exception of the iron fence until a design is presented. The applicant stated that his intention is to take the house back to its original appearance. Mr. Graham stated that the owners have just about everything stored on site so that they can be reinstalled or replicated where necessary. Chair Battiston asked about the condition of the windows. The applicant stated about 80% were in good condition, and windows that needed replacing would match the existing in material, size, dimensions, and style. Chair Battiston asked about the roof; the applicant stated that the main roof has been replaced, but flashings will need to be redone due to poor installation. The porch roof needs to be replaced. The applicant stated that in the case terne can not be used, copper will be used on the roof. Mr. Pradia asked about the brick work; the applicant stated that the foundations (brick piers) were in decent shape except for the porch. The applicant stated that he will repoint with lime mortar. The applicant stated that the portions between the brick piers will need to be replaced and rebuilt. Mr. Pradia moved to approve the application as submitted with the condition that any repointing must use the appropriate lime mortar mixture and the fence design be submitted to staff for approval, followed by a second from Ms. Wynn. The motion passed unanimously. h. 35 E. Tabb Street: The applicant, Gil Entzminger, was present. Staff recommended approval of the proposed application. Mr. Worsham stated how important the colonnade was to the style of the building and recommended having the eastern enclosure be spandrel glass to help portray the intent of the colonnade. Mr. Worsham moved to approve the application as submitted with the exception that the spandrel glass be used on the eastern enclosure, followed by a second from Ms. Wynn. The motion passed 3-0-1, Ms. Booty abstained. i. 212 S. Jones Street: The applicant requested that 216 S. Jones Street be presented first. The Chair obliged. j. 216 S. Jones Street: The applicant, Danielle Powell, was present. Staff recommended denial of the proposed application. Ms. Powell stated that the property was a part of the Operation Renew program which has two components: the property is dilapidated and the property must have ties to a drug nexus; the applicant states that both have been accomplished with this property. Ms. Powell stated that the owner of the house has no plan to neither fix nor demolish the property and allowing the property to remain in this condition would continue to contribute to crime and blight. The applicant stated that there are currently no offers to purchase and rehab the structure. Howie Hines, Building Official, stated that there is some damage to the front porch and warped portions along the side of the property as well. Ms. Booty asked if there were records of the drug use. Mr. Hines responded that the Police do have records of crime in the immediate area. Mr. Worsham asked if each property could be presented and then the ARB vote; Chair Battiston responded that they needed to vote on each property individually. Mr. Worsham stated he would like to know the whole context being that it is one street. Ms. Booty stated there would be no neighborhood left as a result of the demolitions. Ms. Booty stated that she believed that all properties are salvageable and thus her vote is to deny them. Chair Battiston stated that the ARB is not supposed to let any houses come down, but the board needs to be realistic when thinking about the chances of rehabilitation occurring with these properties. Ms. Booty stated that these buildings are still standing because of the materials and how they were built and buildings that are built as recent as the 1970s do not last like these buildings have. She stated that one of the buildings has a sway in the roof but other have sound foundations and joists. Chair Battiston stated that the worst ones have been chosen to come down. Mr. Worsham stated that qualifiers also included location and drug activity, not just the condition of the building. Mr. Worsham asked if there is a process in place that if the board denies, the applicant can appeal the decision. Mr. Worsham stated that the ARB does not have to consider what the City has to consider, i.e. location, drug activity. Ms. Powell stated that whether or not the board approves the demolition, it will come down through demolition by neglect being that there is no intention of the owner to fix or demolish the property. Mr. Hines stated that there is a process in place that the decision can be appealed to council. Chair Battiston asked for public comment. Mr. Capuano stated that he has similar problems in his neighborhood with blight. He asked if the property owner or the City pays for the demolition. Chair Battiston stated that a lien is placed on the property. Geoff Stell asked who pays when the property is demolished through this program. Chair Battiston stated that this was off the topic of the ARB’s purview. Mr. Pradia stated that based on what the attorney has shared, he moved to approve the application as submitted. The motion lacked a second. The motion failed.  Ms. Wynn stated she agreed with Mr. Worsham’s suggestion to look at all of the applications for demolition so that they may better understand how the demolitions will affect the streetscape. Mr. Worsham moved to follow staff recommendation, followed by a second from Ms. Booty. The motion passed 3-2-0, with Mr. Pradia and Chair Battiston voting against. Ms. Powell withdrew the remaining properties: i. 212 S. Jones Street k. 222-224 S. Jones Street l. 2227 S. Jones Street 7. OLD BUSINESS 8. NEW BUSINESS a. 101 W. Washington Street: The applicant, Scott Wheeler, was present. There was no staff recommendation. Director of Planning and Community Development, Michelle B. Peters, introduced Mr. Wheeler. Ms. Peters stated that Mr. Wheeler will be presenting the proposed City Hall at the recommendation of the Development Review Team and Mr. Johnson. Ms. Peters stated that the ARB is welcome to make suggestions. Mr. Wheeler gave an architectural description of the building and a synopsis of its features. Ms. Booty stated that the design is compatible enough that it fits well with the city’s historic buildings but it is also clear that it is new construction. Mr. Worsham commended the design and the City’s efforts on Washington Street; he stated that the street has been transformed with the new library and other projects. Mr. Worsham stated that bringing the building to the sidewalk helps contribute to the urban environment. Mr. Worsham also stated that town halls and government buildings traditionally have some sort of arcade at the entrance; Mr. Wheeler stated that there is a two- story high lobby space on the interior of the building. Mr. Pradia asked about utilities and their screening; Mr. Wheeler stated that there will likely be an antenna associated with the Emergency Operations Center, but he is not sure of its location or height at this moment. 9. WORK SESSION 10. ADJOURNMENT With there being no further business, the meeting was adjourned by a motion from Mr. Worsham and a second by Ms. Booty. The motion passed unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m.