Architectural Review Board

Architectural Review Board City of Petersburg, Virginia Minutes of the Regular Meeting May 8, 2019 6:00 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall 135 N. Union Street, Petersburg VA 23803 Members Present: Chair, Joe Battiston Celeste Wynn Terry Ammons Lisa Jordan Members Absent: Vice-Chair, Dino Lunsford Larry Murphy Mitchell Pradia 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 8, 2019 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 Minutes from April 10, 2019 were presented. Mr Ammons asked for clarification if Staff was allowed to administratively approve signs, Mr Battiston said that was discussed years ago. Mr Ammons motioned to approve the minutes as presented, with a second from Ms Wynn. The motion passed unanimously. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Ms Wynn made a motion to approve the agenda. The motion was seconded by Ms Jordan and 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 1 Regular Agenda: a. 429 Third Street: Applicant not present. Mr Ammons motioned to move the application to the end of the agenda. Ms Wynn seconded the application and it passed unanimously. b. 1209 West High Street: Applicant present, William Maku. Staff recommended approval. Mr Battiston asked if there were any problems with Staff’s siding suggestion, or if there were any other ideas. Mr Maku said he could make the siding profile different on the addition, aqs well as use cedar and hardiplank to also show the differentiation. Mr Ammons said he wasn’t concerned with the siding, he would like to see the windows on the addition to be one over one, while keeping the one remaining on the historic addition. He also said that the plans had the windows shoved into corners, which looks awkward. Mr Maku said that was included to distinguish the new from old, Mr Ammons said he was not sure that was needed. Mr Battiston suggested narrower windows to make more space between the window and the edge of the house. Mr Maku liked them being near the edge. Mr Ammons said he would like it to be more comparable to normal residential; what’s proposed is a modern window style so they should be placed in a more normal location. Mr Battiston asked the applicant if he would use more narrow windows to allow for more space from the edge of the building, making it appear more normal. Mr Maku agreed. No public comment. Ms Wynn motioned to approve the application with the alteration of using more narrow windows. Mr Ammons added to the motion that the addition windows should be one over one without the same mutton profile. The motion and its addition was seconded by Mr Ammons and passed unanimously. c. 509 Plum Street: Applicant present, Kenneth Pritchett. Staff recommended approval. Mr Pritchett showed the ARB a historic drawing of the house which showed an existent awning over the one door present in the drawing. Mr Pritchett explained that there were water issues under the door. Mr Battiston asked if he also wanted to construct the posts shown in the drawing. Mr Pritchett said no, in the picture it’s also just over one door, he wants it to cover both. Bolts would be securing it to the wood over the door, and if it goes in the stone that part wouldn’t be visible. Mr Ammons asked if the sides would be covered in bead board. Mr Pritchett said he hadn’t originally planned it but liked the idea. Mr Ammons said to make anchor connections 2 in the mortar and not the stone; Mr Pritchett said that was the plan, Mr Ammons added that by doing it that way the overhang could be removed in the future. No public comment. Mr Ammons motioned to approve the application with the addition that beadboard would cover the sides and that it would be secured to the mortar and not stone. Motion seconded by Ms Wynn and passed unanimously. d. 715 High Street: Applicant not present. Ms Wynn motioned to move the application to the end of the agenda. Motion seconded by Ms Jordan and passed unanimously. e. 1221 West High Street: Applicant present, Juan Benitez with Ninfa Amador. Ms Amador explained the windows and siding just needed repair. Mr Battiston asked about the color, the applicants said it would be the same. Mr Battiston asked if it was a pressure treated fence, it was, Mr Battiston explained painting would have to wait until the wood was seasoned, about a year. Ms Amador asked if white was okay, it was. Mr Ammons asked if the whole thing would be painted, Mr Battiston explained that only the front has to be painted; where it becomes a privacy fence it can remain unpainted. Mr Ammons wondered if this was a rule or recommendation. No public comment. Mr Ammons motioned to approve the application, with the addition that the front be painted white, with an option to paint the rear fence. Ms Wynn seconded the motion and it passes unanimously. f. 20 N. Sycamore Street: Applicant present, Carlos Colindtes. Staff recommended approval. Mr Colindtes explained that he was just changing the left side of the storefront for now, the picture is from the 1840s and he doesn’t have plans yet, but wants to get the work done quickly because the glass on one of the windows is broken. Mr Battiston asked if there would be two separate entrances like the photo, Mr Colindtes said he would be leaving the one central entrance as it is now, rather than make the two separate entrances. He also said and the right, restaurant side would be completed later. 3 Mr Ammons said he liked the idea but it’s hard to approve it, and added that it would probably need a building permit which would require elevation drawings, so they would need to table the application for now until there are plans. Mr Colindtes asked about the drawings, Mr Ammons said they should be to scale and show materials and details; the pictures aren’t from the same time. Mr Battiston said they all liked the idea. Mr Ammons asked about the City’s Commercial Rehab Grant, staff said she had spoken to the applicant about it but would discuss it further. Signage options were discussed. Mr Colindtes asked about a bracket sign like in the photos, or one like Crystal’s Spa. Mr Battiston said Crystal’s Spa already had the brackets present before installing their sign. Mr Battiston said they’re also ok with neon signs. Mr Ammons said the applicant would need to show staff. Mr Battiston specified for counting square footage, each side of a double sided sign is counted separately. Staff added that the window stickers would also take up signage square footage, the applicant said they would probably be taken off. Mr Ammons said neon might be harder to sell. No public comment. Mr Ammons motioned to table the application until the applicant has had a meeting with staff, drawings, and more sign detail. The motion was seconded by Ms Jordan and passed unanimously. a. 430 S Sycamore Street: Applicant’s representative now present, Tucker Fitzhugh. Staff recommended approval. Mr Ammons said the two over two windows are within the period of significance, so while they’re not original there is a reason to keep them and they don’t need replaced. Mr Ammons questioned the round column details in that they seemed Greek revival, he said he wasn’t opposed to them, however they look historic when the porch is presented as a new thing. Mr Battiston had no problem with the columns, but agreed with keeping the two over two windows. Ms Wynn questioned their location, it’s the north elevation. Mr Ammons speculated that those windows were installed when the porch was installed. No public comment. Mr Ammons motioned to approve the application with the change to keep the two over two windows on the north side. The motion was seconded by Ms Jordan and passed unanimously. d. 715 High Street: Applicants still not present. Staff recommended approval. 4  Mr Ammons asked if the type of fence proposed was split rail or painted. Mr Battiston asked if there was even another example of this fence in the city. The location of the fence was discussed. Mr Ammons was fine with the locatio. Mr Battiston commented that there was no house on the lot. Mr Ammons showed a photo of a three board fence, which was more appropriate than the presented fence. No public comment. Mr Ammons motioned to approve a 3 board painted fence, 4 by 4 posts, 8 feet on the center, with the condition that if something is ever built on the property the height should be reconsidered for approval. Motion seconded by Ms Wynn and passed unanimously. a. 429 Third Street: Applicants still not present. Staff recommended changes. Mr Ammons noted that the applicant didn’t follow what the ARB approved last month and took down one of the approved signs. Mr Murphy said he had a problem with it in setting a precedent. Mr Battiston said the applicant had preferred to keep the two middle windows painted if he had to remove some window paintings. Mr Ammons suggested they vote to remove two window paintings. No public comment. Ms Wynn motioned to ask that the applicant remove signage from two of the large low windows, motion seconded by Ms Jordan and passed unanimously. 6. OLD BUSINESS 127 W. Bank Street Mr Ammons asked the status of the chain link fence on 127 W. Bank Street, staff would follow up. Mr Battiston said the owner could gravel the lot, Mr Ammons said it needed a base first because the Nash Building had a basement. Staff noted that the owner probably would not want people parking on the lot, Mr Battiston said the owner could put a more appropriate fence up. Administrative Approval of Signage Mr Ammons requested to see signage applications via email before they’re approved. Mr Battiston said the ARB could be given 4 business days to review them and comment. Staff agreed. 7. NEW BUSINESS Special Meetings 5  Mr Battiston said the ARB used to meet twice a month, when it was brought down to once, there was a atipulation the second meeting could still happen. Mr Ammons said staff still has to give public notice, and they don’t want to show favoritism. Mr Battiston said this board was good about not showing favoritism. Mr Ammons said sometimes applications are too complex to understand without being on site. 8. ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS 9. WORK SESSION 10. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Mr Ammons to adjourn the meeting seconded by Ms Wynn, the motion passed unanimously and the meeting was adjourned. 6