Architectural Review Board

Architectural Review Board City of Petersburg, Virginia Minutes of the Regular Meeting May 9, 2018 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 Celeste Wynn Dino Lunsford Members Absent: Larry Murphy Gibson Worsham 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, May 9, 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 April 2018 Minutes were presented. Ms. Wynn moved to approve the minutes as presented, followed by a second from Mr. Lunsford. The motion passed unanimously. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Motion to approve the agenda as presented was approved unanimously. 5. PRESENTATION BY BOB OGLE Bob Ogle, Director of HistoriCorps, which is part of the Poplar Lawn Revitalization Project, came forward for a presentation on SecureView™ ClearBoarding, which HistoriCorps is courting as a corporate sponsor. The product is stronger than plywood and reusable as a vacant building boarding material. Part of the program is to use Youth Corps; hiring high schoolers and veterans to train in preservation skills, including the use of this product. Chair Battiston questioned the cost, Mr Ogle stated that although it is more expensive, because it is reusable it will be worth it. Mr. Battiston also questioned the City’s Ordinances on the boarding of structures, Mr Ogle said the Ordinance may have to be changed before ClearBoarding can be used. He stated that there will be a 1  demonstration workshop on the Roger Pryor Campbell house. Mr Pradia asked if the product was hurricane proof, it is. Mr Ogle said that the program will also train EMTs on how to enter a home boarded with the product. Mr Lunsford expressed his concern that the use of this would prolong the repair of the property. Mr Battiston disagreed; the neighborhood will look better and increase the desire to fix the area up. Mr Ogle said that even active businesses use the product for nighttime security rather than metal bars. 6. 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. 7. REQUEST(S) FOR CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS Regular Agenda: a. 315 High Street: Applicant present; Christa Goodman. Staff recommended denial of the proposed application on the grounds that it was too tall in relation to other fences in the area. At the April ARB Meeting, Mr Lunsford stated that he would be able to procure a sample of the proposed fence to the following meeting so it could be better reviewed, but he was not able to do this. Ms Goodman had already returned the fencing that she purchased. Mr Lunsford asked if the fence was more for security or decoration, Ms Goodman wants it for security. Mr Battiston expressed his concern for the stability of the fence, siting the photos provided by staff of other examples of the fence installed in Petersburg, possibly without ARB approval. Mr Lunsford stated that the style was fine, but the stability was the worry, since it is a no-dig fence. Ms Wynn questioned why the applicant couldn’t use a concrete base, Ms Goodman said it would be more costly. Mr Battiston asked what Ms Goodman would do if the fence starts leaning, she will take it out and put it back in. Mr Pradia also expressed his concern with stability and asked how long the stakes were; Ms Goodman said they are 10in long pounded into the ground, the fence is 40in tall. Mr Battiston asked Mrs Peters the height requirements on fences from a Zoning standpoint, she stated the max for front yards is 3 ½ feet (42 in). Mr Battiston asked if anyone present would speak for or against the application. Larry Gold, 319 High St, a next door neighbor of 315 High St, came forward. He expressed his displeasure about the condition of the house on 315 High Street as a whole; siding and bricks from the rear are falling off into his yard and raccoons are living in the house. He said Ms Goodman should be using her money to fix the house, rather than put up a fence. 2  Mr Battiston asked if anyone else would speak for or against the application. John Kennedy, 311 High St, came forward. He stated his agreement with Mr Gold’s statements as 315 High St’s neighbor on the opposite side. Mr Battiston asked if anyone else would speak for or against the application. Karen Grahm, another resident of High Street, came forward. She stated that she finds the fence inappropriate and cheap, and doesn’t think it’s fair to approve it when there are other home owners who will spend the money for the real thing. With no other public comment, Mr Battiston asked if the members of the Board would be willing to go to Lowes individually to look at the product. Part of the concern is that fences are being made cheaply and are looking cheaper as they go. A motion was made by Mr Ward to defer the application until the next meeting, when the applicant will bring a sample, along with directions. Mr Pradia seconded, adding that Ms Goodman should also bring one of the stakes used. Motion passed unanimously. Mrs Peters added that the condition of the house as a whole was a Code Enforcement issue, and they will work with the homeowner to bring the house to compliance. b. 133 South Market Street: Applicant present, Richard Cuthbert. Staff recommended approval of proposed application. Mr. Cuthbert expressed an ultimate desire for uniformity in signs throughout his owned buildings in the Courthouse area. Mr Battiston asked about any future tenants in the building because the proposed signs may maximize his total allotted sign area. Mr Cuthbert said there should be no more tenants and doesn’t plan for any more signs. No public comment. Mr. Lunsford motioned to approve the application as submitted, seconded by Ms. Wynn, the motion passed unanimously. c. 228-230 Mercer Street: The applicant was not present, a motion was made and approved unanimously to move the application to the end of the agenda. 3 d. 51 Corling Street: Applicant present, Niles Goode. Staff recommended approval of the proposed application. Chair Battiston asked if Mr Goode knew the construction year, he did not. Mr Goode stated that BLM Co wants the shed down to increase the value. He also said that the roof is sagging and the whole thing is full of junk, there are no utilities to it. While the front is faced in brick, the rest is wood. Mr Battiston asked if it was attached to the house, it is not. Mr Battiston also asked if there would be any damage to the house if the shed is taken down, there will not be. Chair Battiston asked if anyone would like to speak for or against the application. Erica and Simon Joseph Kierulf, 215 Low Street, came forward in support of the application, stating that the shed is an eyesore. No further public comment. Mr Lunsford mentioned that noncontributing structures are easier to take down. Mr Pradia asked what would be put in its place, Mr Goode said nothing, just a nice yard. Motion made by Mr Ward to approve the application, seconded by Mr Pradia, motion passed unanimously. Mr Battiston added that the applicant will need the necessary demolition permits through Code. e. 227 St Andrew Street: Applicant present, Robert Dance. Staff recommended denial of the proposed application. Mr Battiston asked how long the applicant has owned the property; Mr Dance said at least 10 years. He stated that he had tried to begin work, but found half the house to be irreparable from termite damage in the wood, he also tried gutting it but there was too much damage already done. Mr Dance stated that when Charlie Townes did his Structural Engineer Report he was very concerned. Mr Battiston stated that the City Ordinances require the house be put for sale, however the back of the house needs shoring, he recommended following procedure and getting documentation and drawings because it is an unusual and unique structure. Mr Dance stated that he has a game-plan and an architect for the drawings. 4  Mr Lunsford said it’s neat and distinct but too far gone. Mr Battiston asked its condition when it was purchased. Mr Dance said there was a lot of vegetation and water damage. Mr Battiston said that ivy causes worse damage to a house than water. Mr Dance said that ivy is under the siding. Mr Pradia asked what his plan was, if he was willing to sell the house. Mr Dance said he would think about it. No public comment. Motion made by Mr Lunsford to deny the application, the owner must go through Code to stabilize it. Motion seconded by Ms Wynn, motion passed unanimously. f. 329 St Andrew Street: Applicant present; Robert Dance. Staff recommended approval of the application. Mr Dance said that he has used this siding on two properties in Centre Hill Court. He stated that the inside of the house is good and so is the electric work; he’s already used some of the siding on the house around the new electric box, and will only replace siding as needed with the sample provided. Mr Ward questioned the rest of the house; like the roof. Mr Dance said that he will come back for approval for the rest of the work, just siding and paint right now. No public comment. Motion to approve made by Mr Ward; seconded by Mr Lunsford. Motion approved unanimously. g. 241 Mercer Street: Applicant present; Robert Dance. Staff recommends approval of the application. Mr Battiston asked if the same sample provided on the last application would be used for this, Mr Dance said yes. He stated that the inside of the house is good, someone is living in it. Mr Battiston suggested that Mr Dance look into taking the ClearBoarding installation classes because he has so many properties. Mr Dance questioned the expense and stated that his houses are secure. Motion to approve made by Mr Ward, seconded by Mr Lunsford. Motion passed unanimously. 5  h. 1021 W High Street: Applicant present, William Fitzhugh. Staff recommended approval of the application. Mr Battiston asked if the supports on the porch were temporary, Mr Fitzhugh said that they would be replaced. He also said that the back of the house was down and most of the windows were remade. Mr Battiston questioned if he kept them the same 2 over 2, he did. Motion to approve was made by Ms Wynn, seconded by Mr Lunsford. Motion passed unanimously. i. 215 Low Street Applicants present, Erica and Simon Joseph Kierulf. Staff recommended approval of the application. Mr Battiston explained that the application was requested to be brought before the Board, rather than go through staff’s administrative approval, because there were more than two colors proposed. The standard has been to administratively approve paint only if it’s two colors or less plus a roof color; the Board wants to keep things fair between applications. Ms Wynn said that the green color brought out the details on the house trim, and Mr Battiston commented that it was subtle. Motion to approve made by Mr Ward, seconded by Mr Pradia. Motion passed unanimously. c. 228-230 Mercer Street Applicant still not present. Mr Battiston said that because he included his mortar formula in the application, and it is what the Petersburg design guidelines recommend, that the board could review the application in his absence. Motion to approve the application approved unanimously. 6. OLD BUSINESS 7. NEW BUSINESS Mrs Peters announced that May is National Historic Preservation Month, and she invited the ARB to come to the City Council meeting on Tuesday the 15th for a short presentation about it. Mr Battiston presented some standing seam metal roof samples he recieved from a contractor and used them to explain why the old rolled over style of ridgecap 6  cannot be used any longer; the panels are made of steel and bending them in such a way would damage the panels and the paint, voiding the warranty. There are low and high profile ridgecaps available; the low caps, such as what was approved for Mr Murphy’s building on 233 N Sycamore and the Southside Depot. Mr Battiston also said the board should make a decision on what size panel is ideal. Mr Lunsford stated that the board has approved 16in – 18in panels in the past. Mr Battiston preferred if the panels did not go over 16in, but DHR should be consulted. Mr Lunsford mentioned that the high style ridgecaps are a way to vent the building, Mr Battiston said there are other ways to do that. Mr Lunsford explained that older buildings have lasted so long because they were built looser to allow moisture in and out, but modern buildings are built too tightly and don’t allow this. 8. ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS 9. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Ms Wynn. The motion passed unanimously and the meeting was adjourned. 7