Architectural Review Board

Architectural Review Board City of Petersburg, Virginia Minutes of the Regular Meeting July 13, 2022 at 6:00 p.m. Multipurpose Room, Petersburg Public Library Members Present: Chair, Larry Murphy Joe Battiston Louis Malon Terry Ammons Members Absent: Vice-Chair, Dino Lunsford Celeste Wynn Bill Hartsock Staff: Secretary to the ARB, Kate Sangregorio 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Larry Murphy called to order a regular meeting of the City of Petersburg Architectural Review Board on Wednesday, July 13, 2022, at 6:00 p.m. in the Multipurpose Room of the Petersburg Public Library. 2. THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. REVIEW OF MINUTES Minutes from the June 2022 regular ARB meeting were presented. Mr. Battiston motioned to approve the minutes as presented. Mr. Malon seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Malon motioned to approve the agenda as presented, with a second by Mr. Murphy. The motion passed unanimously. 5. PUBLIC INFORMATION PERIOD Mr. Murphy opened the Public Information Period to anyone who wished to speak on any subject not on the agenda. Bill Irvin spoke and presented a booklet of photos to the ARB and audience. Mr. Irvin complimented the work of one of the developers on N. Jefferson St. He brought up 420 Grove Ave. and how the ARB recently approved the owner to replace the cedar shake shingles with standing seam metal, and said that the new roof would have no  craftsmanship and would be very visible. Mr. Irvin noted that the ARB had recently denied a “composite” wood decking material on 130 N. Jefferson St., while allowing the new metal roof on 420 Grove Ave. Mr. Irvin readdressed a complaint he had made before about inappropriate columns on 29-31 S. Jefferson St. Mr. Ammons noted that the handrails had been attached to the columns, so the owner intended to keep the columns looking the way they did. Staff shared what action had been taken with that violation. Mr. Ammons explained some of the rationale behind metal roofs, in that field formed or prefabricated roofs are about the closest we can get to original turned roofs. Mr. Murphy commented on Mr. Irvin’s picture of a roof that was in the packet for the approval of 420 Grove Ave., saying that it did not look appropriate and didn’t remember it being in the application. Staff would investigate whether that was approved or not. Mr. Irvin asked why the ARB would approve a manufactured metal roof and not manufactured decking for 130 N. Jefferson St. Staff explained that when the ARB evaluated the “composite” decking sample, it seemed almost entirely plastic and inappropriate, and that the ARB reviews new substitute materials on a case-by-case basis. With there being no further public comments, Mr. Murphy closed the Public Information Period. 6. REQUEST(S) FOR CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS 6a. 510 High Street Architect present, Bruce Shirley. Staff recommended approval. Mr. Battiston asked what the siding would be, Mr. Shirley said hardiplank. Mr. Ammons thought the proposal was good, but offered one consideration in the repetition of the flat canopies on the facades of each building, and thought that maybe some variation could be added on High Street since with the Seward building gone, that’s a residential area. Mr. Malon asked if everything was going to be constructed at once, Mr. Shirley said yes but there would be a later phase with more units. Mr. Murphy opened the floor for anyone to speak for or against the application. Ramon Esparza spoke. He thanked the applicant for doing this project. With there being no further comments, Chair Murphy closed the public comment period. Mr. Shirley asked about Mr. Ammon’s comments about the porches. Mr. Ammons said he was fine with the project as-is but brought it up as a suggestion. Mr. Shirley did not want to slow down the approval process. Mr. Battiston suggested that the applicant consider the change but that it was not required, and that if they wanted to amend the application to include it, the ARB could conduct an email vote on the amendment. Mr. Shirley agreed. Mr. Battiston motioned to approve the application based on the Design Guidelines Chapter 7, with the option to amend the porch plans. Mr. Malon seconded the application and it passed unanimously. 6b. 107 N. South Street Applicant present, Ramon Esparza. Staff recommended denial. Mr. Esparza said that the property was zoned M-1 for industrial use and was in scale for that, and noted that there was already a tall building there. Mr. Esparza supported a vintage industrial repair look, and said there was no secret there would be large vehicles on the lot. He also noted that fans would be added to the carport, and explained that it was originally conceived of as a drive through. They would eventually be switching to mid-sized vehicle repairs, and the larger vehicles would be taken to a property in Dinwiddie for work. He asked if a tall fence could be installed around most of the property. Mr. Ammons said that he wanted to work with the M-1 use, and noted that the scale of the trucks has grown. Mr. Ammons was less worried about the large carport than screening with trees, not all fencing, and said the neighbors should be brought into consideration. Mr. Esparza said he intended to have grass in front of the existing tree, grass, then the fence. He said he had a plan and was working on the other shop, but needed the roof on the carport for his tenant. Mr. Malon asked staff for the Guidelines’ recommendation. Staff said that the carport was out of scale with the original building. Mr. Malon noted that without walls the carport would be more open. Mr. Battiston said that the zoning on the fence height could be reviewed, and expressed concern about the Tyvek that was still up on the inner wall of the office building. Mr. Esparza said the fence height might also be dependent on the visibility around the stop signs at the corners. He said in regards to the Tyvek, the building was recently attacked by someone with a bat, and the tenant likes the wall for safety. Mr. Battiston asked if the wall would be finished. Mr. Esparza agreed that the wall looks weird, and suggested a privacy tint film for now with the intention of removing the wall one day when the area improves. Mr. Ammons thought the fencing should be a priority. Mr. Murphy wondered why Mr. Esparza was before the Board when several things on the property had been done without approval. There was some discussion and disagreement about the history of violations and approvals on the property. Mr. Murphy said he would vote no on the property. Mr. Battiston said the carport should be addressed now, and then the interior wall of the office should be improved, although the ARB does not generally allow heavily tinted windows. Mr. Ammons said that the board did not want to stop the business on the property, but the applicant should not have started building the carport without approval. Mr. Murphy opened the floor for anyone to speak for or against the application. Staff read an email received from Councilman Myers which supported the application: “To the Architectural Review Board via Miss Sangregoria, As the representative of Ward 5 and in my absence. Please rely upon Ms. Robinson to share my full support of the request listed on your Agenda for your consideration as a zoning perspective. Mr. Ramon Esparza has transformed what was an insignificant corridor to what is now becoming a vibrant Segway from Washington Street to Virginia State University. Where these areas are M1 and B2, his addition to the corners of Washington, Hinton and South Streets have been transformational overall. In comparison to other investments throughout the City, particularly in this area where there is a feeding center, Habitat for Humanities and other industrial operations. I believe that esthetically what the developer has done to the area by adapting a former abandoned laundromat into a restaurant, sparred residential insight for N Jones Street development in the High Street Historic District, as well as the commercial buildout at the corner of South and Hinton Streets, provides residential services that enhance the growing neighborhood in a largely zoned M1, B2 District. Further, the final construction (roofing) of the overhang (industrial carport) to further enhance and to prevent the elements of work in progress is vital and beneficial economically and equitably to the size of mechanical services being provided. i.e. industrial and commercial vehicles. In fact the area, currently Historic or otherwise, was claimed by a vote of interest as an expansion of the historic district. Not of any significant engagement withstanding. The corridor is simply a passthrough in the confines of the city that serves as an operational route as many of us experience in other jurisdictions where industry and residential co-exist from one jurisdiction to another. Where I understand Miss Sangregoria’s hesitation based on historic preservation in a residential area. However, the overlay of the historic district in an M1, B2 District is superfluous to restrict the finalization of construction to this shell of a building. Notwithstanding the allowance of the existing use in the Historic district period… I’d ask you to consider supporting Mr. Esparza’s request as an investment in the growth of Petersburg. Thank you in advance. Councilman W Howard Myers” With there being no further comments, Mr. Murphy closed the public comment period. Mr. Malon motioned to approve the carport, specifying that the most important concern would be the preservation of the original gas station, and that the next preservation piece would be screening. The motion was seconded by Mr. Battiston. The motion passed with a vote of 3 to 1. Voting yes: Malon, Battiston and Ammons. Voting no: Murphy. 6c. 809 West High Street Applicant present, Hugh Williams. Applicant representative also present. Staff recommended deferral. Mr. Williams explained his issue with the siding and windows, that the siding was asbestos which isn’t made anymore, so he would like to know what is acceptable in its place. He also said that he had found a window repair person; the windows on the front could be fixed, but some on the sides could not be. He said four on the west side needed replacement and would like to use vinyl. Mr. Murphy said it would have b=to be wood or wood with aluminum cladding, but noted that there was some leeway on the back. Mr. Ammons said the windows would also have to be the same size, and added that a sash kit might be all that was needed and that storm windows could be used for thermal efficiency. Mr. Williams presented siding samples. Mr. Ammons said removing asbestos siding was a lot of work. There was no public comment. Mr. Ammons motioned to approve the restoration of the front windows, while returning the first floor window to its original condition of two windows; repair windows where possible and if replacements are used, they should be done in-kind. Storm windows may be installed with staff approval. The motion was seconded by Mr. Malon and passed unanimously.  6d. 219N. Jefferson Street Applicants present, Maria and Alex Obando. Staff recommended denial. Ms. Obando said they would not be changing the front of the house, and the side boards in some places were missing, had trees going through them, and peeling paint. They were concerned about the inside. It was noted that 205 n. Jefferson was recently approved to have hardiplank installed on the sides. Mr. Murphy clarified where the hardiplank was proposed to be installed; it would not go on the front or rear; the applicant would use good wooden boards from the sides to repair the front. Mr. Ammons thought the condition was worse than it looked. Mr. Malon said the size and profile of the wood would need to be matched, but noted that the north elevation was very visible. Mr. Ammons said that early 20th century houses weren’t built with the best wood so it splits a lot and is hard to repair. Mr. Ammons would like to see where this proposal has been approved to see how it turns out. Ms. Obando said the profile of the wood would be matched in hardiplank. There was no public comment. Mr. Ammons motioned to approve the application as submitted, with a second from Mr. Battiston. The motion passed unanimously. 7. OLD BUSINESS 8. NEW BUSINESS 9. WORK SESSION Elections: Election for Chairperson: Mr. Malon nominated Mr. Murphy. Mr. Ammons seconded the nomination, which was approved unanimously. Election of Vice-Chairperson: Mr. Murphy nominated Mr. Battiston. Mr. Malon seconded the nomination, which was approved unanimously. 10. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Mr. Murphy to adjourn the meeting, with a second from Mr. Battiston. The motion was passed unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned.