Architectural Review Board

Architectural Review Board City of Petersburg, Virginia Minutes of the Regular Meeting April 12, 2023 6:00 p.m. Multipurpose Room, Petersburg Public Library 201 W. Washington Street, Petersburg VA 23803 DRAFT Members Present: Chair, Larry Murphy Vice-Chair, Joe Battiston Bill Hartsock Louis Malon Celeste Wynn Members Absent: Terry Ammons Dino Lunsford Staff: Secretary to the ARB, Kate Sangregorio 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Larry Murphy called to order a regular meeting of the City of Petersburg Architectural Review Board on Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 6:00 p.m. in the Multipurpose Room of the Petersburg Public Library, 201 W. Washington Street, Petersburg, Virginia 23803. 2. THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE With there being no flag present, the pledge was dispensed of. 3. REVIEW OF MINUTES Minutes from the February 8, regular meeting were presented. Mr. Battiston motioned to approve the minutes as presented, with a second from Mr. Malon. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Ms. Wynn motioned to approve the agenda as presented, with a second by Mr. Malon. The motion passed unanimously. 5. PUBLIC INFORMATION PERIOD Chair Murphy opened the Public Information Period to anyone who wished to speak on any subject not on the agenda. Bill Irvin spoke. He expressed concerns about work going on a building at the corner of Harrison and East Fillmore Streets. Staff believed the house had a building permit but work hadn’t taken place in a long time. Mr. Irvin also lamented those who purchase and flip houses with their only motive being money. 1  With there being no further comments, Chair Murphy closed the Public Information Period. 6. REQUEST(S) FOR CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS 6a. 125 N. Market Street Applicant present, Parmeet Soin. Staff recommended denial for the work that had already been done. Staff shared a letter from Property Maintenance Official Bradly Shupp who summarized the structural engineer’s report and stated that Neighborhood Services did not approve of Mr. Soin’s metal panels as a temporary solution to the violations on the property, and will require permanent repairs to be made. Mr. Soin explained that there were three 2ft x 4ft metal panels installed on the ground floor to hold the lose bricks. He said Mr. Shupp could test the strength of the panels if he wanted, and wasn’t sure why the panels didn’t abate the violation. He added that the panels were secured to solid mortar and wood shims. Mr. Battiston asked if the applicant knew it was a historic property before he started, he said yes. Mr. Battiston said that the ARB reviews aesthetic changes to historic properties, and that what he’d done negatively affected the appearance of the building, so the brick should be repointed. Mr. Soin said that his solution cost more than repointing, and that he planned to start renovating using tax credits in 6 months, at which time the entire building would be repointed. He said property maintenance was going to close the sidewalk. Mr. Soin complained that other buildings had huge banners on them, which was not aesthetically appropriate. Staff informed the applicant that banners were reviewed as signs through Zoning.1 Mr. Soin said that there was more of a chance to damage the bricks if they had to be re-repointed. Mr. Battiston suggested repointing a little deeper than normal so it could easily be gone over again. Mr. Soin said the structural engineer’s report said the plates worked. Mr. Battiston pointed out again that the plates negatively affected the appearance of the building. Mr. Soin brought up the large banners again, and said he would install banners to cover the plates. He said if he repointed the bricks now the bricks would be damaged, and that this would be a 4 or 5 million dollar project to create apartments. Mr. Murphy wondered what DHR would say about the plates; but they would only be concerned with the use of appropriate mortar. Mr. Murphy asked the applicant to set a time limit on this temporary work, Mr. Soin said 6 months. Mr. Soin showed some areas of brick that were poorly or incorrectly repointed, and said that fixing those would be part of the entire repointing. Mr. Battiston asked if repointing those areas would damage the brick, Mr. Soin said no. Mr. Battiston asked why that would be different from repointing under the metal 1 After the meeting, staff found that the specific banner Mr. Soin referred to was not in a Local Historic District and informed Mr. Soin of this via email. 2 plates and repointing again later. Mr. Soin said there were 10 different kinds of mortar on the building. Mr. Battiston asked if Mr. Soin owned the old Progress Index building, and said there was graffiti on it. There was no public comment. Mr. Battiston motioned to deny the application as installed, and to require the applicant to correctly repoint the damaged brick. The motion was seconded by Ms. Wynn. Mr. Hartsock abstained from voting as he had some previous dealings with the applicant. The motion passed unanimously. 6b. 629 Grove Avenue Applicant present, Marco Thomas. Staff recommended approval. Mr. Thomas said he would take any recommendations from the ARB, but asked if anything on the plans did change, would it have to be reviewed again. The ARB said yes. Mr. Battiston noted that the house was proportionate. Mr. Hartsock thought it would be more in scale to have it two stories, as there were more two-story buildings than workers’ cottages in the area. Mr. Thomas thought this was okay. Mr. Battsiton said the materials were good, and that he was fine with either the proposed scale or two stories. Mr. Murphy commented on the square columns, Mr. Thomas said they were a reference to square columns on 617 Grove Ave. Mr. Battiston reminded the applicant that setbacks had to be confirmed with Zoning. There was no public comment. Mr. Battiston motioned to approve the application as submitted based on the Design Guidelines Chapter 7. Mr. Hartsock seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. 6c. 1115-1117 West High Street Applicant present, William Fitzhugh. Staff recommended approval. Mr. Battiston noted that the plans were thorough and appropriate. There was no public comment. Mr. Battiston motioned to approve the application based on the Design Guidelines Chapter 4 and Chapter 7 Section 4. Ms. Wynn seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. 6d. 1016-1018 West High Street 3 Applicant present, William Fitzhugh. Staff made a correction to the staff report, staff recommended approval rather than denial. Mr. Hartsock asked if this would be a single-family residence, Mr. Fitzhugh said yes. There was no public comment. Ms. Wynn motioned to approve the application based on the Design Guidelines Chapter 4. The motion was seconded by Mr. Malon and passed unanimously. 6e. 514-516 Grove Avenue – main house renovations Applicants present, John and Elise Hogge. Staff recommended denial. Mr. Hogge said that an asphalt roof was cheaper but that they could use wood. Mr. Malon said the wood shingle roof was a very prominent feature of the house. Mr. Hogge thought the existing roof would last another 5 years; there was no water infiltration, just some missing shingles. Mr. Hogge said he wanted the outbuilding to match the main house. Mr. Battiston said that for the siding, any good wood should be kept on the façade and use the new material on the sides and rear. Mr. Hartsock noted that there was more deterioration on siding on the right. Mr. Hogge said that the outbuilding had new lumber and appeared to not be historic. Mr. Battiston said that they didn’t want the new addition on the outbuilding to blend into it completely and look original, so there should be some differentiation. Mr. Hogge suggested beaded hardiboard, Mr. Battiston said that should work for the addition. Mr. Murphy opened the floor for anyone to speak for or against the application. Kelsi Jewell spoke. Ms. Jewell appreciated staff’s recommendation of keeping the cedar roof, as the ARB had set a precedent in approving the Baird House at 420 Grove to replace its cedar roof with metal. Ms. Jewell stressed the importance of using the Sanborn maps and other historic information to determine what’s best so we’re not taken back to the 1970s. She also noted the Historic Petersburg Foundation covenants on the property. There was no further public comment. Mr. Malon motioned to deny the application to replace the roof based on the Design Guidelines Chapter 4 Section F, and approve the installation of hardiplank only on the sides and rear of the house based on precedent. The motion was seconded by Mr. Battiston and passed unanimously. 6f. 514-516 Grove Avenue – alterations to outbuilding Applicants present, John and Elise Hogge. Staff recommended approval. 4  Mr. Battiston confirmed that beaded siding was proposed on the addition. Mr. Murphy noted that asphalt shingles would only be appropriate on the addition. Mr. Hogge said they might use wooden singles. Mr. Battisson suggested the applicants have this change be reviewed for its HPF covenants, since everyone was still unsure if the outbuilding was original or rebuilt. There was no public comment. Mr. Battiston motioned to defer the application to the next ARB meeting on the basis of requiring more research. The motion was seconded by Ms. Wynn and passed unanimously. 6g. 36 W. Fillmore Street Applicant present, Steven Parson. Staff recommended approval. Mr. Parson said he never would have taken the slate off if he had known it was historic and thought his contractor would be getting permits, and was asking for a financial hardship exception and time to correct the violation. Mr. Battiston asked the size of the roof; it was around 1700 sq ft. Mr. Battiston noted that the ARB had grated grace periods in the past for correcting violations. Mr. Battiston also noted that there can be good and bad quality synthetic/artificial slate roofs, and suggested the applicant select his material carefully. Chair Murphy opened the floor for anyone to speak for or against the application. Michelle Murrills spoke. Ms. Murrills said she did not know if every window on the building was, but that not all of them were vinyl. She noted that it was a non- contributing building, and if it was used as a group home consideration should be made for that and its unusual additions. Ms. Murrills thought the ARB should give the applicant time to correct the violation or appeal it to City Council. There were no further public comments. Mr. Malon motioned to approve the application for replacing the inappropriate asphalt shingle roof with either slate or synthetic slate, based on the Design Guidelines Chapter 4 Section F with the allowance of 24 months to correct the violation. The motion was seconded by Ms. Wynn and passed unanimously. 7. OLD BUSINESS 8. NEW BUSINESS 8c. Bollards 5  Mr. Battiston said this issue has come up years ago, his building at 2 N. Sycamore Street was struck by a motorist and he asked for bollards but thought the city should pay. Mr. Battiston also wondered if someone was hurt involving the bollards, who would be legally liable. Mr. Battiston often worried about pedestrians, especially in the problematic intersection of Sycamore and Washington Streets, and thought this should be a city funded initiative for safety, but noted that the bollards would have to be installed correctly; for example, the ones in front of the Farmer’s Market Building at 9 E Old Street were not installed into the ground and are not secure. Staff noted that the proposal would have the ARB reviewing the aesthetics of each bollard, and that they could chose nice looking ones. Mr. Murphy compared the idea to citizens paying for stop signs. Mr. Malon thought that if this project was in the city-wide plan, the city should install the bollards. He also noted that if the bollards were installed more broadly through the city they would be less noticeable. Mr. Murphy motioned to recommend that City Council deny the proposal as presented, and to reconsider it using city funding for installation, with the ARB to review aesthetics and not location. The motion was seconded by Ms. Wynn and passed unanimously. 9. WORK SESSION 10. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Mr. Battiston to adjourn the meeting, with a second from Mr. Hartsock. The motion was passed unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned. 6