Architectural Review Board

Architectural Review Board City of Petersburg, Virginia Minutes of the Regular Meeting October 16, 2019 6:00 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall 135 N. Union Street, Petersburg VA 23803 Members Present: Chair, Joe Battiston Lisa Jordan Larry Murphy Celeste Wynn Terry Ammons Members Absent: Mitchell Pradia Vice-Chair, 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, October 16, 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 September 11, 2019 were not presented. Mrs Jordan motioned to dispense of the review of the minutes, with a second from Mr Murphy. The motion passed unanimously. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Ms Wynn motioned to approve the agenda as presented, with a second by Mr Ammons. The motion passed unanimously. Consent items 6a. and 6b. were approved in this motion. 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 c. 115 N. Sycamore Street Applicant present, Kristofer Haase. Staff recommended denial. Mr Haase explained that when he purchased the property and renovated the second floor it was very dark, and there are four rooms where the windows are. Mr Haase presented photos of the property and said the tree in the alley hides the windows. He said vagrants hang out in the alley, but they're there less since the windows have been installed, and noted that he keeps up the alley from trash and feces. Mr Battiston said he believed Mr Haase knew this would require approval before it was done. Mr Battiston stated it was a city owned alley and could be built on in the future. Mr Ammons asked the type of alley, staff said it was used as a walkway. Mr Ammons said the windows were discreet and on a secondary facade, and there is precedent for adding new windows elsewhere. Mr Ammons was comfortable with the scale of the windows, and said they couldn't make a decision based on what might be built there in the future. Mr Battiston noted the Brown and Williamson Building. Mr Murphy stated that the ARB had been strict on windows before and should remain consistent. Mr Ammons said each case should be looked at individually, and if housing is allowed on the upper stories of buildings, extra light might be needed. Ms Wynn confirmed that there were never windows on that elevation. Mr Haase mentioned wanting to install stairs and a railing on the rear of the building, similar to the Odd Fellow's building. There was some discussion about this, and the Board seemed generally amicable to the idea. There was no public comment. Mr Ammons motioned to approve the application as installed, with a note to clean up jams and brick work and add the rear stairs; Mrs Jordan seconded the motion. The motion was denied 2 to 3 with Ms Wynn, Mr Murphy, and Mr Battiston opposing. d. 118 N. Sycamore Street Applicant present, Eric Walton. Staff recommended approval. Mr Ammons confirmed that Mr Walton had identified the old openings and re-opened them. Mr Battiston noted that this was the opposite of the previous case, and said Walton Gallery was renovated with good quality work. Mr Ammons asked if they would be installing sills, Mr Walton said yes. There was no public comment. Mrs Jordan motioned to approve the application, with a second from Mr Murphy. The motion passed unanimously. e. 127 Bollingbrook Street 2 Applicant present, Trisha Palmer. Staff recommended approval. Ms Palmer explained that Planning Director Michelle Peters had required the privacy fence and no-trespassing signs for Ms Palmer's business to begin opperation. Mr Battiston asked if the fence was pressure treated wood, it was, and commented that she should wait a year before painting. Ms Palmer said she liked the look of darker wood, Mr Battiston said staff could administratively approve the paint. Mr Ammons asked if this met height limit requirements, but it was a variance. There was no public comment. Mr Murphy motioned to approve the application with a second from Ms Wynn. The motion passed unanimously. f. Appomattox River trail Applicants present, Heather Barrar and Jessica Mauzy. Staff recommended approval. Ms Mauzy presented additional plans to the ARB. Mr Ammons noted that there are only a couple options for an all-access trail; concrete or asphalt, and mentioned concerns with excess paving. Mr Ammons said each section might need to be evaluated differently; asphalt does require maintenance but less than maintenance than other options. Mr Battiston noted that a good part of the trail is already asphalt. Ms Mauzy suggested dividing the trail into sections. Patton Park is expected to be asphalt except for a concrete fishing platform. Squaw Alley would have installed a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk with curb cuts where there is no sidewalk present. On Grove Avenue, the sidewalk will remain but be made one foot wider in brick into the street on the north side. The current curb cuts on Grove are aggregate but no longer ADA assessable; Ms Barrar and Ms Mauzy presented options associated with the new curb cuts- solid brick, or aggregate. Mr Ammons asked why the brick was being replaced, because there was some heaving and the sidewalk isn’t wide enough to be accessible. Mr Ammons mentioned that there was a set of standards made when the sidewalks and curb cuts were done on Grove Ave, and noted that driveway curb cuts are not ADA ramps. Mr Battiston liked the look of continuous brick, but it would be more wear and tear from vehicles. Mr Ammons pointed out the original stone crosswalks on Grove Ave. Mr Battiston said longevity means more for aesthetics. Mr Ammons asked if the brick would match what was there, and it would. Staff voiced support for aggregate curb cuts, and the board agreed. Ms Barrar brought forth options associated with bollards to block vehicular traffic; hinged or hidden. The ARB preferred an arched style gate and hinged bollards. 3 Options for the Peter Jones Trading Station included a landing on Grove Ave to go into the asphalt trail through the site, easing the transition from brick to asphalt, with the option of interpretive signage. Along the gravel road by the train tracks the chain link gate would be removed for the use of bollards. Wooded wheel stops were preferred to be darker in color. Designs for knee walls were also presented. The 90% plans for the trail would need reviewed by the Development Review Team, there was uncertainty weather or not the plans should be reviewed by the ARB before or after that. g. 135 W. Old Street Applicant present, Charles Townes. Staff recommended approval. Mr Townes said he was contacted by the City Fire Marshall and did a structural evaluation and it’s a mess, the goal is to take down what is unsafe and evaluate it. There’s a crack in the smoke stack, and Staff suggested the use of a gate to minimize the view. Mr Ammons asked if the removed portions would be rebuilt, they would not be. Mr Ammons noted that the building was allowed to deteriorate to get into this situation. Mr Townes said the gate was needed, and stated that this was a life safety issue. Mr Townes withdrew his application because he thought it was just about the gate, and left the meeting. Mr Ammons questioned where the ARB should be involved where there are choices, what comes down, or what’s repaired in place. Mr Battiston suggested getting more detail from Mr Hines the Building Official. Mr Ammons wanted a plan, Mr Battiston agreed and wanted to find out what areas have to be removed from Mr Hines or Jim Reed, the Fire Marshall, because Mr Townes was vague, not that the ARB would stop it, just to understand. Mr Ammons wanted to know the impact on street fronting walls. Mr Murphy noted they were not going to rebuild what is taken down. Mr Ammons suggested leaving the walls 2 ft above grade to show a record. Mr Battiston reiterated meeting with Code and the Fire Marshall. Mr Ammons said they should know what it will look like since the gate application was withdrawn. h. 416 Second Street Applicant present, Earnest Harrison. Mr Harrison presented a memo of clear glass versus tinted glass, 63% of sun gets into the building through clear glass. Mr Harrison presented a sample of the tinted glass and said he thought it would enhance the beauty of the building. Mr Ammons said it would change the look of the building, and said a coating should be used instead, because part of the beauty of the building is its see-though big windows. Mr Murphy 4  questioned the guidelines in regards to the aesthetics on glass, Staff said colored or tinted glass isn’t directly addressed. Mr Battiston asked if the applicant had looked into Low-E glass. Mr Harrison said he was keeping in mind the integrity of the building. Mr Battiston asked again about the Low-E glass. Mr Harrison said it needed two panes of glass, so his proposal was closer to original than Low-E products. Mr Ammons said another option would be storm windows, but that might not work in this case. A citizen asked if the concern was visibility, Mr Harrison said no, the concern is that it’s in the sun all day long. Mr Battiston said the ARB was more concerned with aesthetics. Mr Ammons said they make hard coat single pane glass; an in-kind replacement would be clear glass. Mr Harrison said he would need shielding on the inside, Mr Ammons said yes, but the Low-E would help with heat. There was no public comment. Mr Ammons motioned to deny the use of bronze tinted glass, but recommend hard coat Low-E glass. The motion was seconded my Ms Wynn and passed unanimously. i. 426 Grove Avenue Applicant representative present, Tucker Fitzhugh. Staff recommended approval. Mr Ammons noted this was the John Bare House. Mr Battiston said the addition would be minimally visible. Mr Ammons was fine with the addition, it was compliant but differentiated. No public comment. Mrs Jordan motioned to approve the application as submitted, with a second from Mr Murphy. The motion passed unanimously. 7. OLD BUSINESS 8. NEW BUSINESS a. 116 Liberty Street- Historic Building Plaque There was no discussion or public comment. Ms Wynn motioned to approve the application with a second from Mr Murphy. The motion passed unanimously. The board noted that the plaque should not be installed on a column. 9. WORK SESSION a. A Call to Action Meeting- Staff announced the upcoming meeting. Mr Ammons voiced concerns about demolition, Mr Murphy was concerned about the cost. Mr Ammons speculated about 5  being a little more lenient towards high concern areas, however the ARB should be consistent. b. Brett Pringle – 33 Liberty Street Mr Pringle submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, but did not make the deadline for this meeting. He asked about using aluminum clad windows, taking down a porch that would not be visible from public right of way, and having a replacement door made to match existing. Mr Ammons said they would need to take a look at the application and the house, Mr Murphy agreed. Mr Battiston said the proposal would be heard at next month’s meeting. Mr Pringle said the roof was in bad shape, Mr Ammons said it must be replaced in-kind, Mr Battiston suggested a sealant paint. Mrs Jordan motioned to approve removal of the rear porch structure, because it was not visible from public right of way and therefore not subject to ARB purview. The motion was seconded by Ms Wynn and passed unanimously. c. Kenneth Martin, Architect Mr Martin asked if changes were quantified over a certain percentage to make a hardship exception call. Mr Battiston said the ARB is not supposed to take finances into account in making decisions. 10. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Mr Murphy to adjourn the meeting, with a second from Mrs Jordan. The motion was passed unanimously and the meeting was adjourned. 6