Architectural Review Board

Architectural Review Board City of Petersburg, Virginia Minutes of the Regular Meeting February 19, 2014 7:00 p.m. Union Station 103 River Street, Petersburg VA 23803 Members Present: Chair, Joe Battiston Vice-Chair, Isaac Ward Mitchell Pradia Theresa Booty Celeste Wynn Members Absent: Gibson Worsham Phillip Arnold Staff: Secretary to the ARB, Kathleen Morgan 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Joe Battiston called to order a regular meeting of the City of Petersburg Architectural Review Board on Wednesday February 19, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. at Union Station, 103 River Street, Petersburg, Virginia 23803. 2. THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. REVIEW OF MINUTES The minutes of the January 8, 2014 regular meeting were approved with a motion from Ms. Wynn and a second from Ms. Booty. The motion passed unanimously. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved as submitted with a motion from Mr. Pradia and a second from Ms. Booty. 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. No comments during the Public Information Period. Chair Battiston closed the public comment period. 6. REQUEST(S) FOR CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS a. 7 E. Old Street: The applicant, Russell Kvasnicka, was present. Staff recommended approval of the application. Mr. Kvasnicka read an explanation of  the mural from the artist, Mickael Broth. Chair Battiston wanted the audience to see the proposed mural, so the applicant showed the rendering/poster board to the audience. Mr. Ward moved to approve the application as submitted, followed by a second from Ms. Wynn. The motion was approved unanimously with the exception of an abstention from Ms. Booty. b. 121 Liberty Street: The applicant, Ciara Jones, was present. Staff recommended approval of the amended application. The application had been amended to repair the current original roof. Ms. Jones stated she was going to try to preserve the roof that is already there; her contractor said it would be doable. She asked if it was decided that a roof replacement was necessary, what materials would be appropriate. Chair Battiston stated that another tin roof would be the preferred material. He explained that you could get a pre-fabricated tin roof; and the preference of the ARB is to have a standing seam roof with a seam of no more than 1 inch. Ms. Jones stated that route would only be explored once deemed necessary. Ms. Booty stated that she would prefer the applicant bring samples to staff in the event the roof needs to be replaced. Mr. Ward reiterated that the application has been amended from replacing with an asphalt shingle roof to repairing in-kind. Mr. Ward made a motion to approve the application as an in- kind repair of the existing metal roof, followed by a second from Mr. Pradia. The motion was approved unanimously. c. 216 N. Sycamore Street: The applicant, Col. Victoria Revilla, was present. Staff recommended approval of the application but felt creating a smooth surface as opposed to a faux brick application would be a better option. The applicant stated the preference was to match the rest of the brick, taking the space between the old brick starting on the second floor and the new brick at the ground level and applying the brick veneer. Mr. Ward states that it would be relatively simple to make the space in question a smooth surface, creating a “gap” between the old brick and the new brick. The applicant stated she was agreeable to that suggestion. Chair Battiston agrees with Mr. Ward, in creating a flat surface and not using a brick veneer. Discussion then moved to the rear doors of the addition. Mr. Pradia asked what the materials of the doors were. The applicant stated they would be metal doors. Mr. Ward reiterated the application has been amended to not use a brick veneer but smooth stucco on the existing storefront, agreeing with staff’s recommendation. Mr. Ward made a motion to approve the application, followed by a second from Ms. Booty. Mr. Pradia asked what the color of the doors would be; the applicant answered the doors would be black. The applicant stated the smooth stucco finish would match the color of the rest of the building. The motion was approved unanimously. d. 36 W. Fillmore Street: The applicant, Brenda Seal, was present. Staff recommended approval of the application. Chair Battiston asked once the porch were to be removed, what would the side of the building look like. The applicant stated there is a brick wall from the first floor down to the ground. Chair Battiston asked that any pockets (mounting pockets) in the brick be filled with  appropriate brick instead of just mortar. The applicant stated she intended to salvage as much of the brick as possible, possibly for a flower bed. She also plans to salvage the porch posts for signage or other potential uses. Ms. Wynn asked about the flower bed using the brick foundation, as the applicant had proposed. The applicant stated the existing porch foundation is not stable and would have to come down, but the intent is to reuse that brick for a garden area or for the mounting pockets. Ms. Booty asked if there are windows below the porch. The applicant stated no, just brick. Ms. Booty asked about the exterior stairs connecting to the porch. The applicant stated the steps are concrete. Ms. Booty asked what the plans for the steps were. The applicant stated they would most likely be removed from the site. Ms. Wynn made a motion to approve the application, followed by a second from Ms. Booty. The motion was approved unanimously. The applicant asked if she was approved to paint the windows; Chair Battiston stated staff has the authority to approve paint colors. e. 29 W. Tabb Street: The applicant, Bob Englander, was present. Staff recommended approval of the application. The applicant has stated that emergency stabilization has already occurred. Scaffolding is already surrounding the building. The applicant also stated that repair to the back wall will entail essentially removing it and replacing using as much of the original brick as possible and a comparable mortar mixture. The applicant also stated that bricked in doors and windows on the first floor will be reopened and doors and windows put back as they were originally. In reference to bricking in the windows on the east side, the brick and mortar will match the original brick and mortar color. Chair Battiston asked if the board was obligated to require the bricked in openings be recessed. Mr. Ward said it was obvious that those openings were not original and not contributing to the integrity of the building. The applicant shared that the west elevation is mirrored except for the two small window openings, further proving that they are unoriginal. Mr. Ward stated that recessing the openings could further distract from the originality of the building. The applicant stated that along with bricking in the windows the brick surrounding them would be repointed. Chair Battiston stated that he appreciates the effort to save this building. Mr. Ward made a motion to approve the application as submitted, followed by a second from Ms. Wynn. The motion was passed unanimously. f. 405 Grove Avenue: The applicant, Harriet Wynn, was present. Staff recommended approval of the application. Chair Battiston asked for the material of the windows, and the applicant answered that the windows would be wood. Chair Battiston also asked if the applicant would be using a thermopane or single pane. The applicant stated that she had not decided, but asked if the thermopane would be appropriate. Chair Battiston answered that the thermopane would only be acceptable if the muntins were applied on the exterior of the windows. He also asked what the brand of the windows would be. Staff answered the windows were manufactured by Jeld Wen. Chair Battiston asked if the siding being  replaced would only be the badly split and rotted pieces, retaining the siding in good condition. The applicant concurred. Mr. Ward moved to approve the application, followed by a second from Ms. Wynn. The motion was approved unanimously. g. 37 River Street: The applicant, Walter Parks (Walter Parks Architect), was present. Staff recommended approval of the application. The applicant states the restoration of the building will be done to the National Park Service standards. He states the canopy/pavilion will be free of the wall on the ruin portion of the depot. Chair Battiston asked about the motivation for the aluminum storefront window. Mr. Ward stated that it is an original opening but the siding that currently fills the opening is not original. Mr. Ward continues to say that since we do not know what was there originally, something modern should be installed as to not create false historicism. The applicant stated that what is there now is not original to the building, and the proposed window is meant to be a clear delineation from the historic materials, but something that is also not prominent. Mr. Sean Booty, a member of the public, asked what would be going on the ruins beyond the brick wall. Mr. Parks stated the area would have wood decking to meet the decking that is currently there. Mr. Ward made a motion to approve the application, followed by a second from Mr. Pradia. The motion was approved unanimously. h. 2, 6, 8 N. Sycamore Street: The applicant, Joe Battiston, was present. He recused himself from voting so that he may present his application. Staff recommended approval of the application, recognizing that the rear balconies have been omitted from the application. Staff noted that this is a Historic Tax Credit project through the Department of Historic Resources. Ms. Booty asked if the board was considering the rear balconies at all. The applicant stated not at the moment. Mr. Ward asked if the proposed doors/rear elevation without the balconies would remain as proposed, and the applicant concurred. The applicant stated the windows would either be custom made or manufactured by TrimLine. Ms. Wynn moved to approve the application, omitting the rear balconies, followed by a second from Mr. Pradia. The motion was approved unanimously. i. 849 West High Street: The applicant, Theresa Booty, was present. She recused herself from voting so that she may present her application. Staff recommended approval of the application. Ms. Wynn asked if the replaced slate tiles will look exactly like the ones existing; the applicant stated she will use ones that have been found in the yard. They may not match exactly in color. The applicant stated that the roof of the rear porch will be a standing seam roof of new roof materials as stated in the application. It will be light gray in color, as will the coating on the front porch roof. The applicant stated she will also be repairing and replacing the trim and fascia on the front porch roof. The columns have rot of varying degrees; the applicant will take the posts down, remove the rot and have the rest of the  posts custom turned. Mr. Ward moved to approve the application, followed by a second from Ms. Wynn. The motion was approved unanimously. 7. OLD BUSINESS a. Change meeting time to 6:00 p.m. Mr. Ward moves to approve the proposed time change. Mr. Pradia asks when the time change will be effective. Staff responded it would be effective immediately, but the change could hold off if necessary. Mr. Pradia stated he may have some days where it will be hard for him to get to the meetings at 6:00 p.m. Mr. Pradia followed with a second. The motion was approved unanimously. 8. NEW BUSINESS a. Address long-term absence Chair Battiston states that the process should be followed. The board member should be notified and given due diligence, then the position terminated so that the board may have all positions active and filled. Ms. Booty agrees; she states that staff sending her a letter was a good way to reinitiate contact. Staff states the absence will be addressed—a second written notice will be given and the city clerk advised of next steps. 9. WORK SESSION Chair Battiston had shared an article from an historic neighborhood in South Carolina. The home had inappropriate and unapproved alterations, compromising the district. He reminded the board that although we try to help people as much as we can, we do need to be mindful of enforcing the guidelines. 10. ADJOURNMENT With there being no further business, the meeting was adjourned by a motion from Mr. Ward and a second by Mr. Pradia. The motion passed unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned at 8:44 p.m.