Architectural Review Board

Architectural Review Board City of Petersburg, Virginia Minutes of the Regular Meeting November 9, 2022 at 6:00 p.m. Multipurpose Room, Petersburg Public Library Members Present: Vice-Chair, Joe Battiston Celeste Wynn Bill Hartsock Dino Lunsford Terry Ammons Louis Malon Members Absent: Chair, Larry Murphy Staff: Secretary to the ARB, Kate Sangregorio 1. CALL TO ORDER Vice-Chair Joe Battiston called to order a regular meeting of the City of Petersburg Architectural Review Board on Wednesday, November 9, 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 October 2022 regular ARB meeting were presented. Ms. Wynn motioned to approve the minutes as presented. Mr. Hartsock 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. Lunsford. The motion passed unanimously. 5. PUBLIC INFORMATION PERIOD Mr. Battiston opened the Public Information Period to anyone who wished to speak on any subject not on the agenda. Mr. Brush asked why the agenda item for his property at 404 Hinton St. did not include the construction of an addition. Staff said there was no supporting information for an addition when it was turned in so it couldn’t be reviewed yet.  With there being no further public comments, Mr. Battiston closed the Public Information Period. 6. REQUEST(S) FOR CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS 6a. 223 Harrison Street Applicant not present. Ms. Wynn motioned to move the item to the end of the agenda. Mr. Malon seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. 6b. 109 Marshall Street Applicant present, Cliff Farrar. Staff recommended denial. Mr. Battiston noted that usually when these kind of applications are permitted they’re in locations that are minimally visible. Mr. Farrar said that he needed light in the kitchen on the first floor and a bedroom on the second, and thought adding the windows would balance the look with the existing windows. Mr. Ammons supported the staff recommendation for 1 over 1 instead of 2 over 2 windows, and said that it the proposal kept the geometry of the house. Mr. Farrar was fine with that. Mr. Malon noted that applications are reviewed on a case-by-case basis. There was no public comment. Mr. Hartsock motioned to approve the application with the exception that 1 over 1 windows be used instead of 2 over 2, with a second from Mr. Malon. The motion passed unanimously. 6c. 404 Hinton Street Applicant present, Travis Brush. Staff recommended denial of the windows as installed, but approved of the allowance of time for the applicant to correct the violation. Mr. Brush said that he had rented the house out and during COVID the tenants destroyed the house. He needed to install the new windows to seal the house because they were damaged and vandalized. He would need time to replace the installed windows with more expensive wood. He also noted that many houses around his had vinyl windows. Mr. Battiston said that the ARB had allowed up to a year for window replacement in the past. Staff pointed out that the window frames had also been altered. Mr. Brush aid the top windows were shorter but he tried to get windows as close as he could in size. Mr. Ammons appreciated the applicant’s cooperation and asked staff to preform a 6 month check on the replacement status. Mr. Brush asked about storm winows. Mr. Ammons said 1 over 1 wooden storms that line up with the existing windows and that are the same color would be allowed. Tinted windows or storms would not be permitted. There was no public comment. A motion was made by Mr. Malon to approve the allotment of one year to correct the violation with appropriate windows, with a six month check from staff. Ms. Wynn seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. 6d. 804 W. Washington Street Applicants present Abu-Baakar Sam and Alvid Palmer. Staff recommended approval. Mr. Palmer clarified that they weren’t taking the brick part of the garage down completely, just the wood elements. Mr. Ammons said the language of the application should have been changed to reflect that instead of a demolition. Mr. Battiston asked if the windows would be retained, Mr. Sam said yes, they had someone to restore them. There was no public comment. Mr. Ammons motioned to approve the application as amended, to retain the original brick kitchen outbuilding and rebuild the frame section, and approval as submitted for the front porch removal and reconstruction. The motion was seconded by Mr. Malon and passed unanimously. 6a. 223 Harrison Street Applicant present, Gibson Worsham and applicant representative present, Julian Greene. Staff recommended approval. Mr. Malon commented that there was never a perfect place for a handicapped ramp, but that this was probably the best option. Mr. Ammons asked about a crawl space. Mr. Worsham said they had wanted to keep the foundation as brick piers, but will be using ventilation with the proposed pier infill. There was no public comment.  Mr. Malon motioned to approve the application as presented with a second from Ms. Wynn. The motion passed unanimously. 7. OLD BUSINESS a) Unscheduled discussion on murals Mr. Ammons said that the ARB should have no say in if they like a mural or not. Ms. Wynn thought no more murals should be allowed, since the mural on 305 N. Sycamore (Alibi’s) doesn’t fit with the character of the building. Mr. Ammons restated that he didn’t think that content was in their purview, but reviewing damage would be. Mr. Battiston said that the ARB needed to look at aesthetics. Mr. Ammons noted a time that he couldn’t install a sculpture in his front yard. Mr. Ammons said that most localities have a mural program in place, rather than allowing private individuals apply and install them. Mr. Lunsford said that murals needed to relate to Petersburg. Mr. Ammons said that no mural is historic. Mr. Malon asked if the Comprehensive Plan could have a solution, Mr. Ammons said that the Comprehensive Plan could only act as a suggestion. Mr. Battiston thought they detracted from the district. Mr. Lunsford did not like the mural at 305 N. Sycamore. Mr. Ammons suggested limiting the size of murals from three stories to a more pedestrian scale at one story. Mr. Ammons also commented that the ARB should have seen a print of the postcards that were installed because they were not printed well. Mr. Hartsock said a change in the Zoning Ordinance should be drafted. Mr. Lunsford suggested there should be a work session scheduled for murals as well as the previously discussed new construction guidelines review. Mr. Ammons suggested bringing Culture Works and/or the Cameron Foundation into the discussion as they had an interest in Petersburg public art before. Ms. Wynn left the meeting. 8. NEW BUSINESS 9. WORK SESSION a) National Register of Historic Places Nomination: Walnut Hill Historic District The ARB was generally supportive of the nomination.  b) Proposal by Councilmember for making Individual NR Properties subject to ARB Review Mr. Malon liked the general proposal’s idea, but not the lack of process it was going through. Mr. Ammons noted that any Special Use Permit review could add a COA requirement. He also noted that DHR doesn’t accept scattered districts, there has to be unity connecting them. Mr. Malon agreed that districts should be complimentary. Mr. Ammons said that the normal process for a national Register District includes public notice for input, and agreed that there was importance between districts and their adjacent properties. Mr. Battiston pointed out that realtors don’t have to disclose if a property is in a historic district1. Mr. Malon said the ARB couldn’t review the proposed properties in the context of the surrounding area the way they can for properties in districts. Mr. Ammons thought that this proposal could be considered an attack on people who already care about their historic property, as it would be rare for someone to have a National Register property and not appreciate that. Mr. Hartsock thought property rights issues would arise with this proposal. Staff pointed out that there wasn’t enough specifics on this; in theory every new grave in Blandford could need reviewed if this proposal passes. 10. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Mr. Hartsock to adjourn the meeting, with a second from Mr. Lunsford. The motion passed unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned. 1 It’s true that realtors don’t have to disclose if a property is in a historic district, but there is a place in the listing agreement that calls for disclosure under "Restrictions". What this does is makes it necessary for a purchaser to do due diligence in assessing the property.