Architectural Review Board

Architectural Review Board City of Petersburg, Virginia DRAFT Minutes of the Regular Meeting March 14, 2018 6:00 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall 135 N. Union Street, Petersburg VA 23803 Members Present: Chair, Joe Battiston Vice-Chair, Isaac Ward Mitchell Pradia Gibson Worsham Larry Murphy Celeste Wynn Dino Lunsford Staff: Michelle Peters, Planning Director 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Joe Battiston called to order a regular meeting of the City of Petersburg Architectural Review Board on Wednesday, March 14, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. at Council Chambers, City Hall, 135 N. Union Street, Petersburg, Virginia 23803. 2. THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Ms Wynn moved to approve the agenda as presented, followed by a second from Mr. Murphy. The motion passed. 4. PUBLIC INFORMATION PERIOD The Public Information Period was opened to anyone who wished to speak on any subject not on the agenda. With there being no comments, the Public Information Period was closed. 5. REQUEST(S) FOR CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS Consent Agenda: N/A Regular Agenda: a. 211 High Street: Jim Hester’s intent is to bring back the original condition of the house. The previous owner purchased the current wood shutters, they are pale green, new and will be replaced, Mr. Hester intends to go back to a black and white paint scheme on the house; roof and hardware black, window trim white, door red, which is a traditional federal style. Mr. Battiston clarified the current color scheme, the shutters are currently pale green; and asked if they will they be repaired or replaced. Mr. Hester claimed that they are beyond repair, and need replaced but they will be replicated. It was clarified that the brick would not be replaced, and Mr. Hester mentioned that part of the windows have rotted out on the sills, and the shutters have rotted as well. There were no public comments for the application. Motion made to approve the application, motion passed unanimously. The carriage house in the rear of the property was mentioned, if it is not visible from the street it does not need a COA. Mr. Hester said it would be done the same way as the house. b. 10 West Bank Street: Applicant not present, motion to move application to the end of the meeting, motion approved. c. 1024 High Street: The applicant’s granddaughter was present as a representative. The applicant is trying to fix the house up and keep everything the same except the roof color, the applicant wishes to change it to red standing seam. Mr. Battiston asked for clarification if the roof would be changed completely or just the color. Representative said roof itself, because the current roof is in pretty bad shape. Mr. Battiston requested picture of the roof. In the picture only the porch is currently standing seam, and it appears to be asphalt shingles on the rest of the house. A question was raised about the current siding; the representative said it is fiberboard and will be changed to wood. In moving back to the roof, Mr. Battiston asked what size the seam would be and representative did not know. Mr. Battiston explained that seams could range from 1 to 2 inches, preferably closer to 1 inch; and that the cap system can’t be big and bulky or curved over. Another board member said that the caps system wouldn’t be necessary. Mr. Battiston asked if the owner would be putting standing seam on the entire house. The representative said yes, the shingles would be replaced, although the standing seam roof is not current it was the roof material before the shingles were put on. Mr. Battiston suggested to authorize the roof to be done the same way as on the owner’s Liberty St Property, which was recently approved. A board member mentioned that the ideal roof doesn’t have a cap, it has a curved seam at the top and the representative agreed with this. Mr. Battiston said for the work to be similar to the house on Liberty, to make it clear what materials would be used because there are so many products out there. A board member asked if all the siding was going to  be redone in wood, and applicant said yes. A board member said that corner boards in an L shape with weatherboards running into it is common in Petersburg, so they would want that; there might be some that survive on the house, or some next door. Representative agreed with corner boards, there are corner boards on the porch. The board expressed their preference for the owner to bring references to his previous work to make the board’s process quicker, he’s been consistent and done similar work throughout his properties. No public comments. Mr. Ward motioned to approve, with the addition that corner boards should match those existing or a neighbor’s house, and roof approved to match Liberty St; but if not, details would need to be submitted before approval. Motion seconded by Mr Pradia. The motion approved unanimously. d. 404 North Sycamore Street: Applicant present, Richard Cuthburt. Mr. Cuthburt explained that he is planning on rehabbing the building to make it mixed use with apartments on top and retail on the bottom. He stated the work would be straightforward, he plans to keep the façade the same general shape it’s in; but it needs new windows on 3rd floor which are currently bricked up. He clarified that the 2nd and 3rd floor will be apartments, and the 1st will be two separate retail spaces, with colors to stay the same. Mr. Battison inquired about the visible changes to the building, and asked if new 3rd floor windows would be put in and what their material would be. Mr. Cuthburt said yes, that they will be two over two and that he will check DHR first for the materials, he also mentioned plans for exterior storms. Mr Battison explained that the board will need to see a cut sheet of the new storm windows because they have to match the window trim color, and the board needs to make sure they’re nice. A board member stated that it looks like the windows on the second floor are fairly new because there are factory braces on the back, and said that it wouldn’t be hard to replicate those exactly on the 3rd floor. Mr Cuthburt did not know how old they are; he guessed the 1980s. A board member suggests they may be newer. Mr Cuthburt was not sure about the age of the second floor windows, but he plans for the third floor to be 2 over 2 in wood and said they will be DHR approved. A board member questioned if they were approving cornices today as well. They were present on the drawing. It was suggested that there must be photo evidence somewhere of previous cornices. A board member said it looks like it used to have little brackets on the side of the window; the drawing doesn’t show those. The pictures show the ghost of what it used to look like. Mr Cuthburt said yes, you can tell what was there however he hasn’t found a historic photo. Someone says there are many old photos, it’s worth doing the research, especially for tax credits. Brackets are not on the drawing. A board member pointed out that they’re being asked to approve this application as submitted, but there’s an issue with the brackets. Some sort of little brackets are  visible, and those are seen all over town. Mrs. Peters asked for clarification that the board would like the applicant to restore the brackets as they were. A board member said that sometimes the architect just draws something and you go with it. Mr. Battiston asked what the applicant planned on doing above the windows. The lintels can be seen clearly in places, but seem pretty small. Mr. Lunsford suggested that the mortar probably eroded and it was patched. Mr. Cuthburt said that the whole thing had been covered in stucco at one time. A board member pointed out that they might be skinny. Mr. Battiston said if the applicant wants to do anything with those windows the board needs more detail to go by. Mr. Cuthburt did not have a problem with coming back with more detail. Mr. Battiston clarified that it was not the window detail, it’s clear that they will be duplicated from the second floor, the board needs more explanation when the owner plans to add anything decorative over the windows. The board can’t make a judgement on that part because it’s too small in the plans. Mrs. Peters asked if the board should approve everything but the brackets. Mr. Battisont suggested that Mr. Cuthburt would probably want to fatten the bracket designs up to support the brick above, just use a wider board, and suggested he look at photographs for examples. Mr. Cuthburt said he had a problem with doing anything to the windows without having everything approved. Mr. Battiston suggested they they should get the window repair approved before he tries try to fix the damaged brick, he would be disappointed if he put in the skinny brackets when the damaged brick is showing. Mr. Cuthburt agreed that would save some effort. No public comment. Motion by Mr. Murphy to approve 3rd floor windows and back repair, with the sashes for windows on the 2nd floor and cornices to be deferred to a later date. Motion seconded by Mr. Lunsford, motion approved. e. 133/135 South Market Street: Owner present, Paul Meyer. The applicant is proposing to build two sheds, one already built, and extend the porch, which is currently falling apart; a diagram was drawn to illustrate this. Mr. Meyer clarified that the double lot next to house is empty. Mr. Battiston asked if the shed would have a permanent foundation. Mr. Meyer said they would be temporary on cinderblocks. Ms. Wynn asked if this will be fenced in, Mr. Meyer said yes, they will be inside the fence. Mr. Meyer stated that he may not have the money for one of the sheds to be the planned size, and may have to make it smaller, but right now he’s trying to purchase land in Halifax triangle, if that goes through he will move forward with his business. The shed will have the same design as picture shown, with trim and paint colors the same as his house, blue and antique white. Mr. Battiston asked if the shed will be able to be picked up and moved. Mr. Meyer says he doesn’t plan on it, but in theory it could be, it will be heavy duty though. Picture is what is present. A board member questioned the location of the constructions. Mr. Meyer said he will build deck between the 12 by 12 shed and the main house; current porch is small, he wants to move it to connect the shed and house. He wanted to see if it would be approved but might come back with it designed shorter. Mr. Meyer explains that he grows plants and needs as much ground space as possible. A board member suggests it might be useful to look at older examples of outbuildings in Petersburg, Battersea and replicate those. T-111 is not ideal for historic districts, outbuildings usually match the main house. Mr. Meyer expressed cost issues. Mrs. Peters expressed concern on a zoning standpoint with the location, you can’t build a building on an empty lot where there is no principle use, once the applicant puts the building outside the fence he’s combined the lots, and there are concerns from zoning if there were to be a fire; Mrs. Peters can work with him on placement if it’s approved. Mr. Meyer said the current fence will be taken down. Code will ask him to go through a consolidation for issues being within 5 feet of a property line because if there’s a fire it might jump, so the building would have to be fireproof. And if the lots are consolidated the setbacks are changed. A board member pointed out that having the same level connection with a deck is not unusual in the area, often with a cover. Another board member confirmed that Mr. Meyer was proposing to build something else with T-111 siding. Mr. Meyer said yes, he already has the 12x12 which has T-111. Mr. Battiston said that’s not allowed in historic district. Mr. Meyer countered that looks like his house. Mr. Battiston said the ideal would be to match house in material, size not as important, corner makes it easy construction; the T-111 could be covered with siding. A board member explained that this is why there’s a board, to keep things consistent. Mr. Battiston clarified that the board does not have jurisdiction over Halifax, the front of his property is historic, but the board can’t address the Halifax side. An application for Halifax to be a historic district is underway but it would be federal so the board would still have no jurisdiction. Mr. Meyer clarified that it can still be seen from Market Street. Mr. Battiston said that T-111 is a no- no; the easy fix is to overly it and add corner boards, and for the new one do same siding as the house. Mr. Meyer clarified changes would match house. Mr. Meyer said that the deck will go straight to the shed; right now it’s 4 feet wide, plans for it to be 9 x 11 feet. Mr. Battiston explained that the board is used to having some drawings for examples, like for railings and steps. Mr. Meyer expressed his willingness to come back; the deck is not an immediate concern, he wanted the meeting to be more an initial discussion to know what to do. Mr. Battisotn said that pictures are worth a thousand words; they need drawings or examples for pickets and hand rails. A board member said that the front railing is a good model, but there’s a building code issue on butting pickets closer together than they are on the front though, use same pattern. Applicant must check with code on height, and the board will need samples of what pickets will look like. Mr. Meyer said the current deck is 1985 maybe newer, not historic, and his more immediate plans are the shed and taking down current fence; the deck will be more visible, and it’s coming down to open up to 135; he intends to put posts with tomatoes in place of a new fence. A board member said that less than a certain amount of square feet does not require a building permit, however in historic district it needs COA; this might be question for Mr. Hines. Mrs. Peters said it would be subject to setbacks. Mr. Battison said that when the applicant comes back for his deck he should bring the tomato information; plantings and gardens  are within the board’s purview need approval. The deck needs to match the house and the applicant may need to talk to Planning about its location. Mr Meyer preferred deferral of deck and denial of second shed, he had used T- 111 because the shed would be more protected, but Mr. Battiston countered that you can get the same effect with plywood underneath with corner boards and siding over it. Joyner Paint and Frame MP1 will last longer and will stay stuck, however it is expensive. No public comment A motion was made by Ms Wynn for approval to resurface the existing shed in 6” wood boards with the use of corner boards to match the house, and for the deck and new shed construction to be postponed. Motion seconded by Mr Worsham, motion approved unanimously. Applicant has 30 days to begin work on current shed. b. 10 W Bank: With the applicant still not present, Mr Murphy motioned to postpone the application review until April, seconded by Mr Lunsford. The motion approved. 6. OLD BUSINESS Preservation Planner Position filled, not present, will begin work March 19 7. NEW BUSINESS Presentation: Slate Roofing Alternative: Richie Safren, Safren Sales Inc. 8. ADJOURNMENT Ms Wynn moved to adjourn the meeting, followed by a second from Mr. Lunsford. The motion passed unanimously and the meeting was adjourned.