Architectural Review Board

Architectural Review Board City of Petersburg, Virginia Minutes of the Regular Meeting April 11, 2018 6:00 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall 135 N. Union Street, Petersburg VA 23803 Members Present: Chair, Joe Battiston Mitchell Pradia Gibson Worsham Larry Murphy Celeste Wynn Dino Lunsford Staff: Secretary to the ARB Kate Sangregorio 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Joe Battiston called to order a regular meeting of the City of Petersburg Architectural Review Board on Wednesday, April 11, 2018 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 Mr. Lunsford motioned to dispense of the Review of Minutes, motion passed unanimously. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Battiston requested a motion to move Regular Agenda item d. 517 High Street, to the Consent Agenda. Mr. Worsham made the motion, seconded my Ms. Wynn. Mrs. Peters requested a change in moving Regular Agenda item h. to the beginning of the Agenda, there was a staffing issue concerning the receiving of the application and it should have been placed first. A motion was made to accept this request, motion passed unanimously. 5. PUBLIC INFORMATION PERIOD The Public Information Period is opened to anyone who wishes to speak on any subject not on the agenda. Ms. Rhonda Donald came forward and speaks on her concern, as a resident of High Street, about plans to repair the sidewalks by the City and the High Street Association. She states that the Association is glad to have the sidewalks improved, however this will include having trees in tree wells removed, and plans do not include tree wells in the new sidewalks. There is concern that this will negatively impact the character of the street. ARB Guidelines state that existing trees and plants are to be retained to save the character of the district on private lots; Ms. Donald questions that this should apply to public spaces as well. She  acknowledges that some trees have overgrown their wells, but wonders if they could be preserved or at least have new species which are appropriate replacements be planted in new wells. She insists that a High Street devoid of trees would be unattractive with visible utility poles, and has provided four photographic examples of High Street with varying amounts of trees for comparison. Ms. Donald says that she and her neighbors hope that members of the ARB will assist with this issue. There is no other public comment. Chair Battiston asks Mrs. Peters for comment from a Planning standpoint. Mrs. Peters states that she has not yet received information from Public Works, she does know that this is not a City initiated project; it was initiated by the community, she’s not sure if these issues were discussed in meetings or amongst the association, or if they simply did not agree but the plan moved forward anyway. She made a note and will get clarification from Mr. Tommy Kendric on the City’s end, this project is being funded through the CDBG. The green light has been given, but work not yet awarded. Mrs. Peters mentions that some trees may have been planted by residents. Mr. Battiston expresses his concern about trees planted by residents; some trees have deep roots that go down and don’t damage sidewalks, those trees should be saved; however trees with a shallow root system just under the surface can come up and damage the sidewalk. Brick could curve around the deep root system trees. Mr. Lunsford mentions that if a shallow root system tree is pulled, a deep root system tree could be planted in its place. Ms. Wynn agrees that would keep the character. Mr. Lunsford insists that the shallow roots will ruin this new brickwork. Mr. Battiston agrees with this idea. Mrs. Peters states for it to be on record that the Planning Department will do its best to have a conversation with all parties; the public right of way is not in the ARBs purview, she understands preserving the character of the area is important; but public works controls the right of way. She insists that the concerns will be addressed. Mr. Battiston insists that they are not trying to mandate this, but states that the City has been very cooperative with the ARB in the past with issues they did not have to. Ms. Donald adds that she has been attending the High Street Association meetings and they voted to move forward with the bricking and then went to the city, but at no point did the tree issue come up until after the plans were agreed on; the plans came forward with the new sidewalks not including the wells. Mr. Battiston says the issue will be looked into by Mrs. Peters. With no further public comments, Chair Battiston closes the Public Information Period. 6. REQUEST(S) FOR CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS Consent Agenda: d. 517 High Street Regular Agenda: h. 211 High Street: Applicant present; Risha Stebbins, as well as Daryl Allen. Staff recommends approval of proposed application. Ms. Stebbins adds that she was not aware that brick and concrete were the most common paving materials in her area, some of her neighbors have the exposed aggregate and that is what informed their decision. Chair Battiston confirmed that her preference is exposed aggregate. Mr. Pradia asked if this was the public right of way sidewalk, which it is not. Mr Battiston said historically the Board likes exposed aggregate because it fits with the historic district; exposed aggregate is a form of concrete and has been well accepted. No public comment. Mr Worsham moved to approve the application, Seconded by Mr. Pradia. Motion approved unanimously. a. 133 South Market Street: Applicant present, Paul Meyer. Staff recommends approval of proposed application. Mr. Murphy expressed his concern with the rear yard of the property being very visible from the street. Chair Battiston clarified that Halifax Street is the other public right of way, but that is not in a historic district. Another board member questioned if that still counted because even if Halifax isn’t is a historic district its still in the public right of way. Ms. Wynn questioned the height of the fence and deck, Mr. Meyer said 5 ½ to 6 feet for the fence, the deck will probably be visible, about level with the fence. Mr Worsham explained that decks really aren’t historic, and said that the need to keep people from falling off them might not even be a historical concern. Mr Battiston said he is mostly unsure about the wire fence and posts. Mr Meyer explains he will use the existing fence; remove problem boards and put the wire between the kept posts, stapled and temporary. Mr Battiston said it’s specifically for the plants. Mr Worsham questioned if it was more a trellis, and owner agreed. Mr Meyer said it is seasonal growth, but will consider ivy on the deck, but vegetables on the fence. Mr Worsham said wire fencing has been historically common throughout Petersburg, some 100 years old, he sees no problem. No public comment. Mr. Lunsford motioned to approve the application as submitted, seconded by Ms. Wynn, the motion passed unanimously.  Mrs Peters noted for the record that the board did not approve a use for these architectural features, the owner must work with the Planning Department on the use. b. 318 E Washington Street: Chair Battiston recuses himself from Board discussion and voting, being a board member of the Historic Petersburg Foundation. Mrs. Peters volunteers to take over. Representatives for the application present; Louis Malon. Staff recommends approval of application, with the consideration that the large plaque be treated as a sign. Mr. Malon and Chair Battiston explain the importance in honoring Mrs. Van Landingham with this plaque for her contributions to their foundation and to Petersburg. Motion to approve made by Mr Pradia, seconded by Mr Worsham; motion passed unanimously. Mrs Peters clarifies that this plaque does not constitute a sign as it is illegible from the street. c. 318 E Washington Street: Chair Battiston recuses himself from Board discussion and voting, being a member of the Historic Petersburg Foundation Representatives for the application present, Bill Irvin. Staff recommends approval of the application, although the guidelines state signs should be no higher than 10 feet. Mr Irvin explains that the sign must be visible over the property’s existing fence, and the total sign would be the approximate height of the lamp post. The arm that will hold the sign is actually below 10 feet, although the entire pole is 12. They want to sign to be visible to oncoming traffic. He says it could be possible to resize it. Will be lighted on one side. Mr Worsham states that it appears the sign does fit the 10 feet rule, being that the hanging sign its self is not over 10 feet.  Mr Irvin says that the second placard will advertise the Preservation Task Force. Mr Pradia asks if it will be one or two sided, Mr. Irvin says it’s one sided. Mr Worsham points out pedestrians walking in the other direction won’t be able to read it, and Mr. Irvin agrees. Mr Pradia says a light should also be on both sides. Mr Murphy questions why there is a 10 feet height rule on signs if exceptions are made. Mrs Peters asks the total sign area, it’s determined that the area is under 16 square feet. No public comment. Motion made by Dino Lunsford to approve the application, with the condition that the sign be made double sided with both sides lighted. Motion be seconded by Mrs Wynn, motion passed unanimously. e. 233 N Sycamore Street: Mr Murphy recuses himself from board discussion to be the representative for his application. Staff recommends approval of the application. Mr Murphy explains that a recent wind storm damaged the roof and needs repaired, and the solar panels will not be attached directly to the roof, they will be free standing on it on the flat portion; not visible from the street. Mr Worsham and Mr Lunsford both question the seam details; thickness and panel width, and wonder if the board had ever come to a universal conclusion on what is ideal. Mr Battiston says no, there’s been no conclusion because the original roofs in the area weren’t all done consistently. Mr Lunsford says that he has seen mostly 18 to 20, 16 is ok too. Mr. Murphy says the seams are less than an inch wide, but he can get the exact measurements to staff. Mr Battiston asks the height of the seam; it is 1 inch. Mr Worsham mentions that in the examples there is both a single lock panel and a double lock panel shown. Mr Worsham asks if a sample could be seen. Mr Worsham says it’s ¾ inch on the Farmer’s Market building, the company did an excellent job. Mr Lunsford says there’s a solar company that integrates roof replacement with solar installation who understands requirements and needs associated with installing them in historic districts. Mr Battiston says the consensus seems to prefer a narrow short seam with a radius cap, rather than flat. Mr Worsham adds a gable ridge cap that’s not flat, a turned seam at the top. Mr Lunsford suggests that Mr Murphy could bring a sample of the proposed roofing to staff, who will approve it if it meets the board’s specifications.  16-18 inch panel width, 1 inch standing seam, gable ridge cap; similar to what’s on the Southside Depot. Motion made by Mr Worsham to have the roof panels be a similar width to what’s on the building, about 16 inches, and height of seam to be ¾ inch, with maximum width across the top of the seam to be ¼ inch. The main ridge should have no separate cap; should be turned over. Seconded by Mrs Wynn; motion passed unanimously. Mr Murphy says he will work with staff and provide samples. f. 424-426 N Market Street: Applicant present; Mizraim Johnson. Staff recommends approval of the application. Mr Johnson says it’s simply a refacing of the current aluminum sign. Mr Battiston asks Mrs Peters if it meets sign requirements on a zoning standpoint; it does. No public comment. Motion to approve made by Mr Worsham; motion seconded and approved unanimously. g. 315 High Street: Applicant present; Christa Goodman. Staff recommends approval of the application. Ms Goodman says the fence examples shown can be bought from Home Depot or Lowes. Mr Battiston asks if anyone in the board is familiar with this type of fence, none present are. Mr Worsham says it seems very narrow. Mr Battiston asks if Ms Goodman knows the size of the pickets, she does not. Mr Lunsford checks for the brand specifications online because the board is concerned that they look too thin, the measurements come up to about half an inch. Mr Lunsford thinks there is not enough information to go by. Mrs Wynn shows that one option shown is a little thicker. Mr Worsham expresses his thoughts that this is something they should consider carefully as a precedent for use in the future, a sample should be shown. Mr Lunsford offers to buy a sample to have more information, this could be a great alternative to wrought iron. Mr Battiston suggests postponing a decision till the board can see a sample, because it’s hard to make a judgement when no one has seen it.  Mrs Wynn thinks one of the options presented seems sturdier; she wonders if these fences would blow over in the wind. Mrs Goodman says she has seen the fences used and they are sturdy, she shows an example from Church Hill in Richmond, it’s the same as the fence she is proposing. Mr Lunsford will get a sample. Mr Pradia mentions that the applicant came before the board before for a fence and was approved picket fence at another residence; however she put up a small, unapproved wire fence in front of the shrubbery. Mr Pradia says that if this fence is approved they expect to see it put up, and asks if staff will check on her other property. Mrs Goodman did not consider that to be a fence, Mr Pradia says it looks like something not appropriate to the neighborhood. Mr Battiston thinks a continuation would be best and fastest method for approving this product no one is familiar with because everyone on the board needs to see. Mr Battiston assures Ms Goodman that even if her application is first on the agenda and she is not yet present, the application will be moved to the end of the meeting. Mr Worsham wonders if this fence is robust enough to be visually effective, he suggests bringing a couple more options just in case. Motion to postpone made by Mr Worsham, seconded by Ms Wynn. Motion passed unanimously. 6. OLD BUSINESS 7. NEW BUSINESS Mrs Peters introduces Kate Sangregorio, the new Preservation Planner, who has caught up the COAs and minutes. Mr Pradia asks if the minutes will be posted online, Mrs Peters says that will begin in July. 8. ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS 530 S Sycamore Street- paint colors 514 Harrison Street- paint colors, rear repair 9. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made to adjourn the meeting, the motion passed unanimously and the meeting was adjourned.