Architectural Review Board

Architectural Review Board City of Petersburg, Virginia Minutes of the Regular Meeting May 20, 2020, 6:00 p.m. Held Virtually Via GoToMeeting [Please note: this meeting includes items that were previously scheduled for April 8, 2020] Members Present: Chair, Joe Battiston Celeste Wynn Mitchell Pradia Terry Ammons Larry Murphy Lisa Jordan Members Absent: 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, May 20, 2020, at 6:00 p.m. virtually on GoToMeeting. 2. THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE With there being no flag present, the pledge was not performed. 3. REVIEW OF MINUTES Minutes from January 2020 were presented. The ARB dispensed of their review. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Murphy motioned to approve the agenda as presented, with a second by Mrs. Jordan. 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 6a. 1101 McKenzie Street Applicant not present. Mrs. Jordan motioned to move the application to the end of the agenda, with a second from Mr. Ammons. The motion passed unanimously. 6b. 1223 Edar Street Applicant present, Philip Mayo. Staff recommended denial based on lack of information. Mr. Battiston asked about the previous windows. Mr. Mayo said many of the windows had been replacements and that he wanted to use two over two double pain windows. Mr. Battiston said that thermopane windows can be made in any configuration. Ms. Wynn suggested the applicant send photos of the windows to staff. Mr. Ammons requested construction drawings. Mr. Mayo said he did not have photos of the old windows because they were covered in siding. Mr. Murphy said the applicant should dry-in the structure but they would need window specifications before approval, and that the front windows appear to have been six over six. Mrs. Jordan thought the project would need permits from Code Compliance. Mr Ammons said there was not enough information for them to vote on. Mr. Murphy agreed about tabling the motion but suggested in the meantime that the owner stabilize what’s there. Mr. Mayo said that tarps will blow off and the roof needed framed. Mr. Pradia asked if there was anything that could be approved. Mr. Battiston asked what the type of roof would be, Mr. Mayo said standing seam metal. Mr. Battiston said it was important the rough opening locations were kept. Mr. Ammons said the applicant should work with staff to compile a complete packet to review. There was some discussion about the best way to weather in and protect the existing parts of the structure. It was requested that staff work with the applicant to prepare his next submission. No public comment. Ms. Wynn motioned to table the application based on a lack of information, with a second from Mr. Ammons. The motion passed unanimously. 6c. 30 E. Fillmore Street Applicant not present. Mrs. Jordan motioned to move the application to the end of the agenda, with a second from Ms. Wynn. The motion was passed unanimously. 6d. 405 S. Sycamore Street Applicant representative present, Michael Wilson. Staff recommended denial based on lack of information. Mr. Battiston asked about the materials. Mr. Wilson said it would have a red tin with hardiplank siding to match the house; he described the location. Mr. Wilson asked about the windows on the approved, under construction addition on the main house. The ARB said that since the project was for tax credits, they should be approved by DHR first. There was no public comment. A motion was made by Mrs. Jordan to approve the application as submitted, adding that the windows on the addition be approved, pending review and approval by DHR. The motion was seconded by Mr. Ammons and passed unanimously. 6e. Installation of Banners on Sycamore and Old Streets Applicant present, Richard Cuthbert. Staff recommended approval. It was explained that the banners would rotate or be taken down to avoid them looking deteriorated over time. Mr. Ammons asked if they would be using the old or new hangers on the light poles, Mr. Cuthbert said new because the old ones were inconsistent. Mr. Ammons noted that the old banners were scattered, Mr. Cuthbert explained that these banners would be installed on the east side of N. Sycamore Street and the south side of Old Street for consistency. Ms. Wynn asked about the colors and noted that the City uses burgundy and gold. Mr. Cuthbert said those colors can be used for a later set of banners. Mr. Battiston mentioned the designated colors for each historic district, Mr. Ammons said that the banners would not be permanent. Mr. Battiston opened the floor for anyone to speak for or against the application. Marcus Squires spoke. He said that a UV coating could be added to the banners to protect them. Kristofer Haase spoke and said he liked the banners. There was no further public comment. Mr. Ammons motioned to approve the application as submitted, with a second from Ms. Jordan. The motion passed unanimously. 6f. 233 N. Sycamore Street Mr. Murphy abstained from ARB discussion to act as the applicant. Staff recommended approval. Mr. Murphy explained that the exterior storm windows would match the color of the existing window sashes. Mr. Ammons asked if the product was prefinished with the specified colors, Mr. Murphy said yes, but he would paint the sash if necessary. Mr. Pradia asked if they could be opened for egress; they could. There was no public comment. Mr. Pradia motioned to approve the application as submitted, with a second from Mr. Ammons. The motion passed unanimously with Mr. Murphy abstaining. 6g. 411 Cross Street Applicant present, Kenneth Gildner. Staff recommended partial approval. Mr. Gildner explained that he wanted a different color on the front porch gable and thought the cedar shingles would look better. The color would match the color of the shutters, and the shingles would be flat or scalloped. Mr. Ammons though that it wasn’t really a shingles style house, and suspected it was built earlier, maybe 1945, and noted that he didn’t like plastic shutters. Mr. Gildner said they would be wood slat shutters. Mr. Ammons said the proposed soffit is vinyl and it would sag, and suggested that a vent strip be installed on the outside edge behind the fascia boards would last longer. Mr. Gildner thought that was fine as he wanted ventilation. Mr. Ammons said he wouldn’t argue over the shingles. There was no public comment. Mr. Murphy motioned to approve the application as submitted with the exception of using a vent strip rather than the proposed soffit, and a note that the shutters should be presented to staff before installation to ensure that they would fit the window size. The motion was seconded by Ms. Wynn and passed unanimously. 6h. 9 Centre Hill Court Applicant present, Felicia Rufus. Staff recommended approval, except for the vinyl windows, which should not be approved if they are visible. Ms. Rufus asked if she could use architectural shingles since her neighbors have them. Mr. Battiston said that she could not, and suggested using aluminum clad windows rather than vinyl. Ms. Rufus said some windows were already vinyl. Mr. Ammons said that wood windows with aluminum cladding would be good, and that a  new door would be fine but the one proposed looked too modern and appears to be fiberglass, and suggested looking at alternatives. Mr. Murphy asked if the roof would be repaired, Ms. Rufus said yes, and that she might consider replacement later. Mr. Murphy asked if the porch would match, Ms. Rufus said she would be using a nicer but simple handrail and that the concrete steps would stay. Ms. Jordan agreed that a different door should be chosen. Mr. Battiston opened the floor for anyone to speak for or against the application. Marcus Squires spoke. He asked if the other half of the house, which fronted N. Jefferson Street, would be worked on as well. He also expressed concerns with composite slate roofs bending in the heat. Kristofer Haase spoke. He said that he had salvaged things that Ms. Rufus could use in his warehouse, and might be able to find a door. There was no further public comment. Mr. Ammons motioned to approve the application, with the repair of the existing slate roof, repair of windows or replacement with wood or wood with aluminum cladding; but to deny the proposed door. The motion was seconded by Ms. Jordan and passed unanimously. 6i. 848-850 W. High Street Applicant present, William Fitzhugh. Staff recommended approval. There was no discussion amongst the ARB. Mr. Battiston opened the floor for anyone to speak for or against the application. Marcus squires spoke. He commended the work but asked for a time table for its completion. There was no further public comment. Ms. Wynn motioned to approve the application as submitted, with a second from Ms. Jordan. The motion passed unanimously. 7. OLD BUSINESS 7a. 115 N. Sycamore Street Applicant present, Kristofer Haase. Staff recommended denial. Mr. Ammons noted that there are appropriate instances for new windows in the provided Interpretation of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards regarding the introduction of new windows in blank walls. Mr. Murphy asked if the Guidelines should be made moot in favor of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. Mr. Ammons explained that we already have precedent for this being allowed, and that the Interpretations and Briefs are to help professionals understand the Standards, and noted that the ARB would not be putting itself in jeopardy. Mr. Battiston pointed out that our Guidelines are stricter than the standards, which have changed overtime. Mr. Pradia was concerned that we shouldn't be stricter than the standards. Mr. Ammons said that guidelines can be tailored to be as strict or lenient as a locality wants. Mr. Pradia asked if we should update our guidelines to match the standards. Mr. Battiston used the Perry Street Lofts project as an example of tax credit approved new window installation, although it was not reviewed by the ARB. Mr. Murphy was concerned about consistency with the board’s decisions. Mr. Haase explained that the windows were installed for safety; there has been crime and loitering in that alley which has now completely stopped since the installation of the windows. Mr. Battiston noted that Mr. Hasse had gone through the proper ARB process before. Mr. Battiston opened the floor for anyone to speak for or against the application. Marcus Squires spoke. He said he didn't have a problem with the windows, and noted that one day the lot could be sold and infill could be built on the lot. There was no further public comment. Mr. Ammons motioned to approve the application and require that the windows be cleaned, and the brick be repaired to the satisfaction of the ARB, and that it should be noted that this work took place before approval. Mr. Pradia seconded the motion. Voting yes: Ammons, Jordan, Pradia. Voting no: Battiston, Murphy, Wynn. The motion failed. Mr. Battiston noted that if the windows were removed and bricked in, the wall would look like there were windows. Mr. Ammons said that the history of buildings is to change, but moderation of changes is ok. Mr. Battiston wanted to change his vote. Mr. Murphy also wanted to change his vote. Mr. Battiston reminded the applicant that if the work was approved, one day a new building may be constructed in the alley, which would block the windows. Mr. Ammons restated his motion: to approve the application and require that the windows be cleaned, and the brick be repaired to the satisfaction of the ARB, and that it should be noted that this work took place before approval. It was also noted that the  applicant could not install third floor windows without approval. Mr. Pradia seconded the motion. Voting yes: Battsiton, Ammons, Jordan, Murphy, Pradia. Voting No: Wynn. The motion passed 5 to 1. 7b. 277 Grove Avenue Applicant present, Nicolas Yoss. Applicant representative also present, Johanne Yoss. Staff recommended denial. The applicant wanted to have all the windows on the house match the front. Mr. Battiston explained that historically the windows on a house often were different on the front than the rest of the house, particularly if an addition was added later. Ms. Yoss said having different windows didn't look right. Ms. Yoss also said with one over one storm windows make it look like the whole window is one over one. Mr. Ammons said the windows look original and mostly repairable, and agreed that the side windows often didn't match the front, and one over one was common in the front. He also noted that the addition could be early twentieth century and the windows could be original to it. Ms. Yoss said the windows were in bad condition, and two contractors said they were not reparable. Mr. Ammons said again that he thought they could be repaired. Ms. Yoss said some windows had been resized. Ms. Jordan motioned to allow replacement of windows if they matched in size and configuration and that viable pieces should be salvaged for repairs. Ms. Wynn seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. 6. ITEMS REMOVED FROM REQUEST(S) FOR CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS 6a. 1101 McKenzie Street Applicant still not present. Staff recommended approval. Mr. Ammons confirmed that the new sign would be basically a replacement of the old sign, just with a new message. Staff confirmed this. There was no public comment. Mr. Murphy motioned to approve the application as submitted, with a second from Ms. Wynn. The motion passed unanimously. 6c. 30 E. Fillmore Street Applicant still not present. Staff recommended approval.  It was commented that the installed railing seemed to have been installed cheaply. Mr. Ammons said it hasn’t done any damage and it would be easily removable, it was minimal, doesn’t detract from the rest of the house, and you can tell it isn’t historic. Mr. Battiston asked if the board would have approved it if it had been reviewed before installation. Mr. Ammons didn’t think so, but noted that the railing did not touch any historic fabric. Mr. Murphy thought any other railing might have done more damage. There was no public comment. Ms. Jordan motioned to approve the application, but noted a COA should have been issued before the work was done. Mr. Ammons seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. 8. NEW BUSINESS Marcus Squires missed the Public Information Period and wished to speak of an item not on the agenda. Mr. Squires asked if the ARB was working on the blight survey, and if the ARB went out to look for violations. Mr. Battiston said sometimes, but it wasn’t an official board action or designation. Mr. Squires also asked about a 120 day plan. Mr. Murphy asked if there were still Call to Action meetings about the blight survey; staff explained that they had been postponed due to COVID. Mr. Squires said he was planning his own. Mr. Ammons said some ARBs have the legality to take a more active roll in violations, but noted that Petersburg has a small planning department, ARB, while there are large historic districts. Mr. Squires mentioned that the Go Request App used to report Code violations could also be used for historic violations. 9. WORK SESSION 9a. Completeness of Applications Mr. Ammons remarked that applications should be more complete than the one submitted for 1223 Edar Street so that the case can be reviewed. 9b. New Planning Director – Reginald Tabor Mr. Tabor thanked the ARB for their service, and introduced himself as the new Planning Director. He added that there would be an upcoming blight presentation at City Council. 10. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Mr. Murphy to adjourn the meeting, with a second from Mr. Ammons. The motion was passed unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned.