Architectural Review Board

Architectural Review Board City of Petersburg, Virginia Minutes of the Regular Meeting April 8, 2015 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 Members Absent: Celeste Wynn Gibson Worsham 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 8, 2015 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 March Minutes were presented. Ms. Booty moved to approve the minutes as presented, followed by a second from Mr. Ward. The motion passed unanimously. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Ward moved to approve the agenda as presented, 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. With there being no comments, Chair Battiston closed the Public Information Period. 6. REQUEST(S) FOR CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS Regular Agenda: a. 9 E. Old Street: The applicant, Gil Entzminger, was present. Staff recommended approval of the proposed application with the condition that paint/stain colors be submitted and the doors associated with the enclosure be consistent in style. The applicant stated that impact in terms of kitchen exhausts and louvres would be minimal—the exhaust would be an “in-line unit” and the louvres would be flush with the brick work and similar to those at the Croaker Spot location. The applicant stated the metal door is associated with the walk-in cooler and also does not feel like it will be very visible, furthermore a wood cover might interfere with the space in terms of operation. The applicant stated that the other “new” door design is made to blend with the screening, rather than replicating a paneled door associated with the existing building. The applicant stated that HVAC units are likely to on both the east and west sides, possibly 3 units per side, and that space for landscaping was minimal. The applicant stated a screened fence enclosure could be possible but may also draw more attention to the units. Chair Battiston asked if the applicant had looked into the VRB systems; the applicant responded they have and are still evaluating the HVAC systems. Sandy Graham, the client representative, stated the building is difficult to heat/cool efficiently but the exterior units are likely to be small and 3 on each side. Chair Battiston asked staff for an explanation of the screening; staff responded that screening utilities (meters, HVAC units) has become a bigger concern and with this specific site, potted plants might suffice. Mr. Ward stated that there is a lot of flexibility in HVAC unit placement, and asked the applicant to consider aligning/extend the walk-in/addition to include the HVAC units. Mr. Graham and Mr. Entzminger stated they would have no objection. Ms. Booty agreed that the HVAC units should be included in the enclosure. Mr. Graham then stated it could be done for some of the units but not all. Mr. Entzminger stated it is almost doubling the size of the enclosure. Mr. Ward stated that it would be a shorter, screened unit, not necessarily expanding the proposed enclosure. Mr. Entzminger stated it is possible that the applicant may want to reinstall the roof on the north side as it was originally to provide for outdoor dining, and having the units adjacent to that may not provide an ideal environment for outdoor dining. Ms. Booty asked if the location of the air handlers had to do with the location of the units; Mr. Entzminger stated if an air pump was necessary to accommodate the distance it could be done. Mr. Ward suggested maybe using a stain that mimics more of the brick than the existing wood stain color. Mr. Entzminger stated they had not made a decision on the stain for the enclosure but that the color palette (paint and stain) would be presented to staff for approval.  Ms. Booty asked if lightning protection was being taken into consideration; Mr. Entzminger said it would need to be if the flag pole was installed (it is proposed as optional). Mr. Ward commented that if there is a visual impact, it will need to come back to the board. Chair Battiston asked for public comment. There was no public comment. Mr. Ward moved to approve the application with the condition that the HVAC units be moved to the north end of the addition, to the back, enclosed in a shorter screening, matching in material and style. The motion was followed by a second from Mr. Pradia. The motion passed unanimously. b. 9 N. Sycamore Street: The applicant, Gwen Hill Holt Cooper, was present. Staff recommended approval of the proposed application. Mr. Pradia asked how the light would be installed; Ms. Cooper stated an interior wood frame would be built to which the fixture would be attached to. Furthermore, the brick will not be damaged. The applicant stated the fixture will be centered above the middle of the two doors. Chair Battiston asked for public comment. There was no public comment. Mr. Pradia moved to approve the application as submitted, followed by a second from Ms. Booty. The motion passed unanimously. c. 633-647 W. Washington Street: The applicant, Nathanial Pride, was present. Staff recommended approval of the proposed application. The applicant stated an initial assessment advised replacing the slate (asphalt shingles and original slate) with architectural shingles, but he believed the synthetic slate was more appropriate. Ms. Booty asked if the slate manufacturer would be able to duplicate the floral design and slate color; the applicant stated the manufacturer would not. Ms. Booty asked about flashing; the applicant stated the flashing would be metal. The applicant stated that the intent is to try to salvage as much as possible, but he has been told that the slate is very brittle. Robert Jones, applicant representative, stated the property is a senior home and has limited funds. Chair Battiston asked for public comment. There was no public comment. Ms. Booty stated that slate does last a long time but she is concerned with replicated the slate design.  Mr. Ward moved to approve the application as submitted, followed by a second from Mr. Pradia. The motion passed unanimously. d. 235 N. Market Street: The applicant was not present. The Board moved on to the next agenda item, deferring this item to the end of the agenda. e. 14 Centre Hill Court: The applicant, Elwood Yates, was present. Staff recommended approval of the proposed application. The applicant stated the building houses apartments; the owner was under insured and will have to pay out-of-pocket for the repairs. Mr. Yates stated the hipped dormer would be very expensive. Mr. Yates stated the owner is to the point of doing what is proposed or doing nothing at all. Ms. Booty asked how thick the plybead would be; Mr. Yates stated it is 3/8”. Ms. Booty stated it would be hard to tell the difference from the ground. Chair Battiston asked for public comment. There was no public comment. Mr. Ward moved to approve the application as submitted, followed by a second from Ms. Booty. The motion passed unanimously. f. 618 Grove Avenue: The applicant, Anita Brown, was present. Staff recommended approval of the proposed application with the condition that the standing seam be no higher than 1.5” and the color be presented to staff for approval. Chair Battiston stated the existing seam height was about ¾”; Mr. Ward asked what standing seam height Ms. Brown was considering. Mr. Ward also said that panel width, flashing and ridges should also be taken into consideration when looking at newer, pre-fabricated roofing materials. Chair Battiston stated that multiple companies make 1” standing seam pre- fabricated metal roofs with long term warranties. Chair Battiston asked for public comment. There was no public comment. Mr. Ward to approve the application with the condition the metal roof is replaced with a standing seam metal roof with the seam to be no higher than 1”, the panel width to match existing, the trim pieces be appropriate in scale and approved by staff, and to also include repair to masonry chimney using lime based mortar. The motion was followed by a second from Ms. Booty. The motion passed unanimously.  d. 235 N. Market Street: The applicant was not present. Staff recommended approval of the proposed application. Chair Battiston asked if the replacement would replicate the existing metal replacement garage door. Staff replied that it would, allowing for a consistent look. Chair Battiston asked for public comment. There was no public comment. Mr. Ward moved to approve the application as submitted, followed by a second from Mr. Pradia. The motion passed unanimously. 7. OLD BUSINESS 8. NEW BUSINESS a. Public Mural Guidelines: Staff stated this process started back in November of 2014 as the result of a mural application. The guidelines have morphed from public murals to public art, to include multiple forms of art. Staff stated guidelines have been presented for a vote, but they can still be altered and voted on at a later date. Staff added Mr. Pradia’s comments. Public Art Petersburg’s comments were also added. Public Art Petersburg has suggested that a separate application be made for public art approval and possibly vetted by a panel of qualified individuals. The panel would be selected by the applicant, not appointed by the City. Staff stated Public Art Petersburg comments were sent to the board. Staff introduced Rashad Gresham, Zoning Administrator, to help clarify the difference between a sign and a mural. Chair Battiston asked if Rashad could offer his opinion on the mural guidelines. Mr. Gresham stated that from a zoning standpoint, the content would not be regulated unless it implied any commercial message at which point the sign permit process would be triggered. Mr. Gresham stated from the zoning administrator’s role, the content for the “Before I Die” wall could not be regulated. Mr. Gresham stated he would work with staff to address issues that may arise. Mr. Pradia asked if there was a way to distinguish graffiti from a sign from a mural. Mr. Gresham stated that was up to interpretation. Mr. Ward stated if there was no sign permit or mural permit, then it is graffiti. Mr. Pradia stated concern about enforcement for murals without the proper permits. Staff stated that enforcement would be the same as it is for other complaints in historic districts. Alain Joyeaux, member of Public Art Petersburg, stated that they are motivated by good quality art, which is why he believes there should be an adjudication process. Mr. Joyeaux stated that he sees it as a two stage process—first, whether the proposed location is a good location, second is the art vetted by a panel of individuals educated in the art field.  Chair Battiston stated he would like for the ideal of the panel/adjudication process to be vetted by the attorney. Chair Battiston stated he believes the panel should be appointed by the City. Mr. Pradia asked how an applicant would find these qualified individuals for a panel; Mr. Joyeaux stated he was aware of at least 20 qualified individuals in the area. Chair Battiston stated that he would like to delay a vote to find some answers to the posed questions. Mr. Ward requested that staff continue to work with Public Art Petersburg on a draft for the next meeting. Mr. Ward moved to table a vote on the guidelines, followed by a second from Mr. Pradia. The motion passed unanimously. 9. WORK SESSION 10. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Ward moved to adjourn the meeting, followed by a second from Mr. Pradia. The motion passed unanimously and the meeting was adjourned.