Architectural Review Board

Architectural Review Board City of Petersburg, Virginia Minutes of the Regular Meeting June 10, 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 Gibson Worsham Mitchell Pradia Members Absent: Celeste Wynn Theresa Booty 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, June 10, 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 No minutes were presented. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 137 Liberty Street and 316 N. Sycamore Street were removed from the agenda. Mr. Worsham moved to approve the amended agenda and the consent 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. With there being no comments, Chair Battiston closed the Public Information Period. 6. REQUEST(S) FOR CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS Consent Agenda: a. 416 Grove Avenue: Approved Regular Agenda: b. 7 Courthouse Avenue: The applicant, Tom Kendrick, was present. The applicant was not seeking full approval. So staff did not have a recommendation but was supportive of the direction. Mr. Kendrick introduced Steve Jones, the engineer, of Mosely Architects and Annie Sauser, Preservation Architect, of John Milner Associates. Ms. Sauser explained that the proposal is to stabilize the building as well as restore the architectural features/aesthetics while the stabilization work is being done. Ms. Sauser explains that the metal flashing was probably left unfinished (copper) and rusticated to mimic stone. Ms. Sauser explains that there may be evidence of paint color other than white. Mr. Worsham stated that if paint color other than white were to be proposed, a paint analysis would be necessary. Ms. Sauser explains that the capitols of the ionic columns are extremely deteriorated and need to be replaced. Ms. Sauser also explained that the capitols did show paint colors other than white, historically. Chair Battiston asked if the applicant planned on coming back with more detail on the paint color and flashing color; the applicant stated yes. Chair Battiston asked Mr. Jones about the bracing; Mr. Jones explained that existing wood timbers/columns support the tower, and that water infiltration has been the main cause of the problem. Mr. Jones stated that the historic timbers and columns will remain in place but supported by steel splices and plates. The steel will be within the tower; the only place where steel will be installed on the exterior of the tower will be at the base of the bell. Mr. Jones stated that the steel is concealed. Mr. Pradia asked when work was supposed to begin; Mr. Kendrick stated that September or October for completed plans and then advertising. Mr. Worsham asked if they would be coming back when plans were complete; Ms. Sauser stated yes. Mr. Worsham recommended a paint analysis for the entire property’s exterior as opposed to just the tower. There was no public comment. c. 137 Liberty Street: Removed from the agenda. d. 259 Grove Avenue: The applicant, Chris McCracken, was present. Staff recommended approval of the proposed application. Mr. McCracken stated he is attempting to make the building not as much as an eye sore as it is now while adding a contemporary flare. Mr. McCracken stated the metal roof will be 1” standing seam, galvanized steel left unpainted. Mr. McCracken stated he will submit paint colors at a later date. Chair Battiston asked Mr. Worsham asked his opinion of the unpainted galvanized metal roof; Mr. Worsham stated his concern  was more with the columns/timbers as proposed. Mr. Worsham stated straight columns would be less eye-catching. Mr. Ward stated the columns are a variation. There was no public comment. Mr. Ward moved to approve the proposed application, followed by a second from Mr. Worsham. The motion passed unanimously. e. 233 N. Sycamore Street: The applicant, Larry Murphy, was present. Staff recommended deferral of the proposed application until proposed recommendations can be addressed in the plans. Mr. Murphy produced new plans in line with staff’s recommendations. Mr. Worsham recommended adjusting the transom/cornice above the door. Mr. Worsham stated a Petersburg storefront has a cornice, transom, another cornice and then usually a transom. Mr. Murphy stated there was about 6-8 feet between the top of the door and the top of the storefront. Mr. Worsham stated the upper transom could be paneled and not glass—to be more in keeping with the adjacent building, to the right. Mr. Murphy stated he would work with staff on paint color. Mr. Murphy stated the windows will be TrimLine, wood. Mr. Murphy stated the doors will be wood doors. Mr. Ward asked any further detail in the plans were required. Staff stated that could be a stipulation of the motion. There was no public comment. Mr. Worsham moved to approve the application with the condition that the application return with more detailed drawings, specifically addressing the cornice to match the adjacent building to the right, transom/panel to correspond to adjacent building, and then the storefront, to include a section of the storefront; followed by a second from Mr. Ward. The motion passed unanimously. f. 115 Marshall Street: The applicant, Lawrence McLaughlin, was present. Staff recommended approval of the proposed application. Chair Battiston asked the applicant if he was going to make his best effort to tone down the new addition to blend with the existing shed; the applicant stated he would. There was no public comment. Mr. Worsham moved to approve the application as submitted, followed by a second from Mr. Pradia. The motion passed unanimously. g. 316 N. Sycamore Street: Removed from the agenda. h. 106 E. Fillmore Street: The applicant, Karen Pastor-Vargo, was present. Staff recommended denial of the proposed application. The applicant stated she had a  title company search the title to see if there were any restrictions. Mr. Ward later stated that the local historic district designation would not have come up in a title search. The applicant stated that the house already had some vinyl windows. She stated one of the window sashes was so deteriorated it fell out of the frame on its own. The applicant stated the vinyl windows they installed kept the wood trim and replicated what was there, and they will keep and maintain the rest of the wood windows. She stated she had proposed moving the wood window from the side, which she believes is not visible from the street, to the front and moving that vinyl window to the side. Mr. Worsham asked if the window frames were still there; the applicant stated the frames are still there just wrapped in vinyl. The applicant stated the back windows are already vinyl. Mr. Worsham stated that the rope-and-pulley system would not be necessary with the wood sash replacements. He suggested having 6 new sashes made. The applicant stated she received a proposal at $1,200.00 a window. The applicant also brought paint color proposals; Chair Battiston stated to keep any new mechanical units at the rear and to screen them. There was no public comment. Mr. Worsham moved to deny the proposed application and give staff the authority to approve wood sash replacements brought forth by the applicant for the recently installed vinyl windows and also accept the proposed paint colors, followed by a second from Mr. Ward. The motion passed unanimously. 7. OLD BUSINESS a. Public Mural Guidelines The proposed guidelines were updated to include similar guidelines to new construction, structural engineer report where necessary, site plan where necessary. Mr. Worsham asked what was removed in this draft. Staff stated that nothing was removed but a portion was re-worded- a sentence asking the art to reflect the history of the area was re-worded. An addition was that a maintenance plan should also be included as well as signage/plaque/panel identifying the name of the artist, the date and COA number. Mr. Worsham asked if the guidelines cover the concept of visual integrity. Staff stated that the guidelines state, “The public art’s size, colors, proportion and scale should support the streetscape and visual integrity of the area.” Mr. Worsham stated his concern was certain views like: High Street, the market, the courthouse. Mr. Ward stated you could argue that any new element is disrupting the visual integrity. He stated the more appropriate word may be significance. Staff stated that in the existing guidelines, a section states, “Some parts of the historic districts retain a high degree of their original historic character. In these areas, care should be taken to ensure that the new design does not visually overpower its historic neighboring buildings.” Mr. Worsham stated to duplicate that in the public art guidelines. Mr. Ward stated that  it was a little more specific and not just about blanket integrity. Staff stated that the next step would be to implement an art/COA application. Chair Battiston asked if the Public Art Petersburg would help; staff stated yes. Staff stated that the guidelines have been advertised in the past 2 months of ARB meetings and a public meeting was held specifically for the guidelines. Mr. Worsham stated he would like to vote and review them further. 8. NEW BUSINESS Administrative Approvals: a. 510 S. Sycamore Street – signage b. 325 E. Washington Street – replacement in-kind c. 108 E. Fillmore Street – fencing 9. WORK SESSION 10. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Pradia moved to adjourn the meeting, followed by a second from Mr. Worsham. The motion passed unanimously and the meeting was adjourned.