Architectural Review Board

Architectural Review Board City of Petersburg, Virginia Minutes of the Regular Meeting June 13, 2018 6:00 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall 135 N. Union Street, Petersburg VA 23803 Members Present: Chair, Joe Battiston Mitchell Pradia Larry Murphy Gibson Worsham Members Absent: Vice-Chair, Isaac Ward 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, June 13, 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 May 2018 Minutes were presented. Mr Worsham moved to approve the minutes as presented, followed by a second from Mr. Murphy. The motion passed unanimously. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr Worsham made a motion 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. 315 High Street: 1  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, but would be open to a shorter fence. Mr Worsham asked staff if the example photos presented were of the exact same fence, staff stated that they were, and some may have been up around Petersburg for several years, probably without ARB approval. Mr Worsham asked Ms Goodman the height of the fence she put up, she stated that it was 40 inches. Mr Battiston asked if she would be willing to amend the height to 36 inches; Ms Goodman said that would be fine. Mr Battiston asked if anyone present would speak for or against the application. Linda Pitman, 410 High Street, came forward. She stated that the material of the fence was not acceptable, and that when it was temporarily installed it looked out of place. Mr Battiston asked if anyone else would speak for or against the application. Bruce Donald, 533 High Street, stated that this no-dig temporary looking fence would have a negative impact on the neighborhood. Mr Battiston asked if anyone else would speak for or against the application. Councilman Meyers, 431 W. Washington Street, came forward. He stated that the issue is that repairs need to be made to the main house, the fence would add no value. Mr. Battiston stated that the Planning Department was working with Code on the issue, and explained that complaints aren’t the ARB’s purview. Mr Battiston asked if anyone else would speak for or against the application. Board member Mitchell Pradia, 517 High Street, came forward. He stated that the ARB only deals with the visual appeal of changes, and because the ARB approved farm animals in the past, they should approve a fence. There was no further public comment. Mr Murphy questioned staff about the guidelines’ requirements on height. Staff explained that there’s not a set rule; fences should be no taller than the average of the heights in the area. Mr Pradia asked if there was anything in the guidelines about temporary fencing, staff stated that there was not. A motion was made by Mr Murphy to approve the fence at a height of 36 inches, and seconded by Mr Worsham. Mr Pradia recused himself from voting after speaking at the podium. The motion was approved, with Chair Battiston voting in opposition. b. 25 D’Arcy Street: Applicant present, Margret Byrne. Staff recommended approval of proposed application. 2  Mr Battiston asked for the height of the seam, it would be 1 inch. Ms Byrne added that soffits and fascia would be repaired as necessary, with in- kind replacements if needed. No public comment. Mr Worsham asked if the soffits, facia and downspouts should be added to the application for approval. Mr Battiston said they should be added to the motion to speed the repair process. Motion made by Mr Worsham to approve the roof as submitted, and to repair soffits, rafters, inset gutters, downspouts, and fascia. Mr Pradia seconded the motion, it passed unanimously. c. 406 Harrison Street: Applicant present, Michael Vaughn. Staff recommended approval of the proposed demolition of the outbuilding built prior to 1915. Mr Vaughn explained that he acquired the property in 2005 from HPF to preserve the main house, which the shed had been attached to probably in the ‘50s. When it was approved for demolition, he did not argue with the contractor for leaving the shed up. He said the nails in the shed were examined and found to be machine cut. He also stated that it was a mess and an eminent danger. No public comment. A motion was made by Mr Worsham to approve the application, followed by a second from Mr Murphy. The motion passed unanimously. d. 431 W. Washington Street: Applicant present, Howard Meyers. Staff recommended approval of the proposed pergola, but only approval of the fence if it would be no taller than the rear privacy fence. Mr Battiston questioned the height of the rear fence, Mr Meyers stated it is 6 feet. Mr Battiston asked why he wanted a 5 foot tall front yard fence, Mr Meyers said that a tall fence would be more proportionate to the tall house. Mr Worsham stated that he’d never seen a 5 foot tall picket fence, it would need extra support and he would advocate a 3 foot fence. Mr Battiston questioned a 4 foot height. Staff explained the concern about a concrete step along the sidewalk adding the appearance of an extra foot to the height of a fence. Mr Murphy stated that he would be fine with anything less than 6 feet. 3  No public comment. A motion was made by Mr Murphy to approve the proposed pergola and a front fence 4 feet in height, seconded by Mr Pradia. The motion passed unanimously. e. 18 E. Fillmore Street: Applicant present, Tony Sipple. Staff recommended approval of the proposed plaque application. Mr Murphy asked the history of the building and what the requirements for a plaque are. Staff explained that the program was changed over the years and now plaques are issued based on renovation rather than an important date or event. Mr Sipple clarified that George Washington didn’t sleep there. Mr Pradia asked if there were any older pictures, Mr Sipple stated that he did not have any, he’s only lived there a year. Mr Pradia asked if it was a double house at one time, Mr Sipple said it was built as a single house, but in the 20th century it was used as two. Mr Battiston stated that there were guidelines for the location of the plaque on the house in the ordinance, and that staff would assist the applicant with placement. No public comment. Motion made by Mr Worsham to approve the plaque, seconded by Mr Murphy. The motion passed unanimously. f. 33 D’Arcy Street: Applicant not present. Motion to move the application to the end made by Mr Murphy; seconded by Mr Pradia. Motion passed unanimously. g. 702 Commerce Street: Applicant present; Carol Johnson. Staff recommends approval of the application. Mr Battiston asked if the roof would be coming out over the stoop, Ms Johnson said it would not. Mr Battiston said she should go to Code Compliance to see if the proposed work needs a Building Permit. 4  Mr Worsham stated that this type of house is rare, so he’s agreeable to anything that makes it more habitable, and this roof may prevent rain damage to the porch. No public comment. Motion to approve made by Mr Pradia, seconded by Mr Murphy. Motion passed unanimously. h. 112 W. Tabb Street: Applicant present, Melody Krone. Staff recommended approval of the application. Ms Krone brought forward the proposed unpainted sign. She explained it would be painted white with a navy blue finish in the engraving. Mr Pradia asked if it was double sided, it is not. He also asked about its mounting, Ms Krone explained it would be on the railing to the left of the stair entrance. No public comment. Motion to approve was made by Mr Pradia, seconded by Mr Murphy. Motion passed unanimously. i. 18 Perry Street Applicant not present. Motion to move the application to the end made by Mr Worsham; seconded by Mr Murphy. Motion passed unanimously. j. 215 Low Street Applicants present, Erica and Simon Joseph Kierulf. Staff recommended approval of the application. Mrs Kierulf explained that the stairs are uneven and a tripping hazard, they do not want to be sued. Mr Battiston agreed. No public comment. Motion to approve made by Mr Pradia, seconded by Mr Murphy. Motion passed unanimously. k. 116 Liberty Street 5  Applicant not present. Mr Battiston asked if the application had enough information to be passed without a representative, staff was not sure because the applicant had not specified if they wanted a white or black fence. f. 33 D’Arcy Street Applicant still not present. Mr Worsham mentioned that the board has met on location before for demolition applications. Mr Battiston stated it would be helpful to have a structural engineer report, Mr Worsham said if they could see the structure they might not need a structural report. Mr Pradia stated that if the bones of the house are good it shouldn’t come down. i. 18 Perry Street Applicant still not present. The age of the house was questioned, and found to be around 1790. Mr Worsham questioned the proposed side porch reconstruction, and said it appeared too modern looking, he would like to see the reference photos for its design. Mr Battiston expressed concern from a Code standpoint about the safety of the railings. Mr Murphy said they need a representative for this application. 6. OLD BUSINESS 7. NEW BUSINESS 8. ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS 9. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made to adjourn the meeting by Mr Worsham, seconded by Mr Pradia. The motion passed unanimously and the meeting was adjourned. 6