Architectural Review Board

Architectural Review Board City of Petersburg, Virginia Minutes of the Regular Meeting July 11, 2018 6:00 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall 135 N. Union Street, Petersburg VA 23803 Members Present: Chair, Joe Battiston Mitchell Pradia Larry Murphy Celeste Wynn Dino Lunsford Members Absent: Vice-Chair, Isaac Ward Gibson Worsham Staff: Secretary to the ARB, Kate Sangregorio 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Joe Battiston called to order a regular meeting of the City of Petersburg Architectural Review Board on Wednesday, July 11, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. at Council Chambers, City Hall, 135 N. Union Street, Petersburg, Virginia 23803. 2. THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. REVIEW OF MINUTES June 2018 Minutes were presented. Mr Pradia moved to approve the minutes as presented, followed by a second from Ms Wynn. The motion passed unanimously. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr Pradia asked if anything could be moved to the consent agenda, staff suggested item D. because the application was only for paint. However, because it was a change in paint colors it had to be reviewed in the regular agenda. It was clarified that staff could only administratively approve paint if it was two colors or less. Ms Wynn withdrew her motion to move item D. to the consent agenda. Mr Pradia moved to approve the agenda as originally submitted, seconded by Mr Lunsford; 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. With there being no comments, Chair Battiston closed the Public Information Period. 1 6. REQUEST(S) FOR CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS Regular Agenda: a. 33 D’Arcy Street: Applicant present; Billy Mabry. Staff recommended denial of the proposed application. Mr Mabry stated that it was true there was no phone number on the “for sale” sign on the house, however the house did have “for sale” sign in the yard for 7 or 8 years but it was taken down. Mr Battison asked that the applicant ask the property owner to formally put the house on the market so it could have a chance for someone to restore it. Mr Battiston also explained that the lower the asking price, the shorter the time it would need to be on the market, and everyone who wants to demolish has to go through the same process. Mr Mabry asked if the owner would need an agent, Mr Battiston stated that they couldn’t dictate that, but the house would need a clear sign with a working phone number at least. Mr Mabry asked the time schedule for sale, and staff clarified this for him. Mr Mabry asked if he could take down the house’s porches because they were a danger to pedestrians, and said the chimney was dangerous as well. Mr Battsiton stated that they could not allow the side porch to come down because it was too far from the sidewalk to be a danger to pedestrians. Mr Pradia asked who stated that the porches were dangerous, and Mr Mabry said it came in a letter from the Code Compliance department. Ms. Wynn asked the applicant if he had talked with Code about this, he said that he hadn’t really because he needed a COA to do anything. Mr Lunsford asked if the house was an eminent danger, staff stated it was probably a repair or demolish letter. Mr Battiston confirmed that the applicant wanted to secure the house for safety by removing the front porch and the loose bricks on the chimney. There was no public comment. A motion was made by Mr Lunsford to remove the loose brick on the chimney to roof level, remove the front porch, and put the house up for sale based on the time schedule in the Zoning Ordinance. Ms Wynn seconded the motion, and the motion passed unanimously. b. 18 Perry Street: Representative present. Staff recommended approval of proposed application. 2  Mr Battiston asked the materials for the side porch and the representative wasn’t sure. Mr Battiston stated that whoever does know must confirm its appropriateness with staff. No public comment. Motion made by Mr Lunsford to approve the application as long as the materials to be used are confirmed with staff to follow the material guidelines. Mr Pradia seconded the motion, it passed unanimously. c. 116 Liberty Street: Applicants not present. Ms Wynn motioned to move the application to the end of the agenda, motion seconded by Mr Lunsford. Motion passed unanimously. d. 115 N. Sycamore Street: Applicant present, Kristofer Haase. Staff recommended approval of the proposed application. The paint samples were passed around by the board members for review. No public comment. A motion was made by Mr Pradia to approve the proposed application, seconded by Ms Wynn. Motion passed unanimously. e. 305-307 N. West Street: Applicant present, Claiborne M. Stamos. Staff recommended approval of the proposed application. Mr Battiston clarified the area of the house to be removed, and that the area left open would be covered with like and kind siding. Mr Stamos confirmed that he would save as much of the siding as possible from the area to be removed to use as siding for the remainder of the house. Mr Battiston stated that the board should approve the siding at that meeting to not hold the applicant up for another month because there probably wouldn’t be enough salvaged siding to cover the area completely. No public comment. Motion made by Ms Wynn to approve the application with the provision of the siding, seconded by Mr Lunsford. Motion passed unanimously. f. 231 N. Sycamore Street: 3  Applicant present, Tracy Allen. Staff recommended approval of the proposed application. Mr Battiston confirmed that there are new colors on the building from the time the previous sign was approved. No public comment. Motion to approve the application made by Ms Wynn seconded by Mr Pradia. Motion passed unanimously. g. 422 High Street: Applicant present; Michael Allshouse. Staff recommended approval of the application. Mr Murphy arrived for the meeting. The board members questioned location of the wall in relation to the building, and if materials would be salvaged for its construction. Mr Pradia asked if the wall would be permanent, Mr Allshouse confirmed that it would be. Mr Battiston questioned window placement; it would be a solid wall with no windows. Mr Pradia asked if the jagged remains of the side wall would be cut, Mr Allshouse stated that the wall would be made flat. Mr Battiston opened the floor for public comment; citizens came forward to confirm where this project would be located and that it would not be new construction. Motion to approve the application made by Mr Pradia with the addition of removing the damaged portions of wall. Motion seconded by Ms Wynn. Motion passed, with Mr Murphy abstaining due to his late arrival during the discussion. h. 12 N. Sycamore Street: Applicants present, Andrew and Debbie Campbell. Staff could not make an informed recommendation due to lack of information in the application. The applicants brought forward an SD card with more information on the project, however staff did not have the appropriate technology to display this. Mrs Campbell asked what they would need to bring in to have enough information for approval. Mr Battiston stated that they would need specific dimensions and materials to be used. Mr Lunsford said that proposed elevations would be ideal. Mr Battiston asked what would be done to the second floor of the front façade; Mr Campbell stated they would like to cover it in perforated metal sheathing, and 4  Mrs Campbell asked if a metal sample should be brought in; the board agreed that physical samples would be best. No public comment. Motion to defer the application to the next meeting was made by Mr Lunsford, seconded by Mr Murphy. Motion passed unanimously. i. / j. 702-708 and 712 Harrison Street Applicant present, Al Smith. Staff could not make an informed recommendation due to lack of information in the application. Mr Smith presented drawings to better explain his plans. He stated that he did not have as detailed plans for 702-708 Harrsion because he would like to start on 712 first. Mr Battiston stated that the level of detail and ornateness in the designs for 702- 708 Harrison may not be appropriate. Mr Murphy suggested that the applicant look for old photos for reference, possibly at the Petersburg Library, it would also be helpful to have the buildings floor plans and elevations, and to use materials common in the early 1900s. Mr Smith stated that there were problems with a tree on 708 Harrison, and it might need to be rebuilt in steel. The building needs t obe maintained to prevent further deterioration. The applicant also expressed a desire to do cosmetic front yard landscaping. Mr Battiston asked if the roof would be repaired, Mr Smith stated it would. The option for use of synthetic slate was possible. Mr Smith said that he was told he could salvage good slate from the back of the roof and use it on the front, and just synthetic on the back. Mr Battiston suggested that the application be piecemealed. He questioned what bricks would be used for the fence/wall, Mr Smith said they would be salvaged from demolitions. Were the decorative balls on the walls concrete? Mr Smith said they were actually lights. Mr Battiston asked staff for regulations on lights, staff did not believe there were any. Mr Battiston asked that the lights be brought in as a sample before they can be approved. Ms Wynn asked if the bricks in the wall would be from the interior or exterior of buildings, because they have different properties; a sample of the proposed bricks should be presented. Mr Lunsford stated that samples should be brought for everything planned. Ms Wynn agreed, and listed slate, brick, and lighting as examples. Mr Battsiton stated that the more samples provided, the less Mr Smith would have to come back for approval. Mr Murphy asked if the wood picket fence on 712 would be taken down, Mr Smith stated he would like something more durable, Mr Murphy stated that the house might have historically had the wooden fence. 5  Ms Wynn stated that the priority now should be working on making the houses dry. No public comment. Motion was made by Mr Lunsford to repair the roof framing to dry the inside, and for the applicant to bring samples of remaining work. Motion seconded by Mr Pradia, motion passed unanimously. Mr Battiston suggested the applicant look at similar houses for reference. Motion made by Mr Murphy to defer the application to the next meeting, seconded by Ms Wynn. Motion passed unanimously. k. 111 Central Park Applicant present, Bruce Noe. Staff recommended approval of the application. Mr Battiston stated that the application was pretty self-explanatory. No public comment. Motion to approve made by Mr Murphy, seconded by Ms Wynn. Motion passed unanimously. c. 116 Liberty Street Applicant still not present. Mr Murphy motioned to defer the application to the next meeting, seconded by Mr Lunsford. Motion passed unanimously. 6. OLD BUSINESS 7. NEW BUSINESS Megan Harman from Pella Windows Ms Harman came forward to present their line of Architectural Reserve line, which is historically accurate and has been given the O.K. by the National Park Service. Mr Battiston asked if they were wood inside and out, Ms Harman said yes, that is required for buildings under 3 floors. She stated that simulated divided light is O.K. by the NPS. Mr Lunsford asked if they sold just sash kits, Ms Harman did not think so, that wouldn’t be under warranty. 6  Mr Battiston said they would like to give people another choice other than Trim Line, and would like to see something that proves the NPS’s satisfaction with the product to keep with staff. Ms Harman stated they have competitive pricing for high quality vs. Trim Line. It takes 3-4 weeks to make the windows. Considerations for the construction of Tiny Houses Staff presented a write-up of the Guideline’s relevant information that would concern Tiny Houses, in regards to new construction, scale, massing, materials, and being compatible with the character of the district. Mr Battiston stated that tiny houses between the larger houses on High Street would be an eye-sore. He also stated that he doesn’t like very new looking houses amongst the historic houses, it would be easier in a non-contributing area or an area that already has small houses. Mr Lunsford stated that tiny houses as trailers would not be appropriate. 8. ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS 9. ADJOURNMENT 7