Architectural Review Board

Architectural Review Board City of Petersburg, Virginia Minutes of the Regular Meeting August 8, 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 Celeste Wynn Dino Lunsford Members Absent: Gibson Worsham Larry Murphy 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, August 8, 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 July 2018 Minutes were presented. Ms Wynn moved to approve the minutes as presented, followed by a second from Mr Pradia. The motion passed unanimously. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr Lunsford moved to approve the agenda as presented, with a second from Mr Pradia. 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. Councilman Charlie Cuthbert came forward to speak and thank the ARB for their work on 227 St Andrews Street. He was not sure if the house would ultimately be saved, but there is a “For Sale” sign on the building, although he did not know the asking price. He stated this had been a learning experience for City Council on the demolition process for the historic district, and was pleased by the seven to nothing Council vote in favor of the ARB’s decision. He thanked Chair Joe Battiston and 1  Board Member Celeste Wynn for speaking during the appeal, and mentioned that there were many good comments from the public as well. It showed the importance of the ARB and its processes. He stated that demolition by neglect is a big problem, not just at 227 St Andrews Street, and that he is working with City staff to address this issue. He said that it was great to be on the same team as the ARB, and thanked the members again for their service, time, and decision making; because it’s impossible to make everyone happy and it can be an uncomfortable position. 6. REQUEST(S) FOR CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS Regular Agenda: a. 116 Liberty Street: Applicant not present. A motion was made by Ms Wynn to move the application to the end of the agenda, seconded by Mr Ward. Motion passed unanimously. b. 12 N. Sycamore Street: Applicants present. Mr and Mrs Campbell. Staff recommended approval of proposed application. Mr Battiston confirmed that the roll-up mechanism would be on the inside of the building and not protruding out, the applicants stated that was correct. No public comment. Motion made by Ms Wynn to approve the proposed application, seconded by Mr Lunsford. Motion passed unanimously. c. 702-708 Harrison Street: Applicant present, Al Smith. Staff recommended approval only if materials and dimensions were presented before use. Mr Smith presented the original slate on the roof and a proposed synthetic sample, as well as a sample brick for use in the fence proposed at the previous meeting. The synthetic slate samples matched the color of the original. The applicant also presented two photos of ornamental metal fences in the area, 514 Harrison and 729 Harrison, to show that his fence would be appropriate. Mr Battiston asked the brand of fence, Mr Smith said it was the fence he brought to the previous meeting, which looks like the one in the presented pictures. Mr Battiston questioned the height of the fence in relation to zoning regulations, staff stated that the maximum height for front yard fences is 3 feet 6 inches. 2 Mr Battiston asked where the fence would go, and if it could be shown as a sketch. Mr Ward commented that there was not much of a description of scope presented. Mr Smith brought forward a photo of the property and pointed out where the fence would go, Ms Wynn stated that the board would need measurements. Mr Ward requested a bulleted list of all proposed work for 702-708 Harrison. Mr Smith said that first would be landscaping; tree trimming, the fence, walkway, flowers. Next would be replacing the back porch and stairs because the back partially fell in; Mr Smith presented two photos of other two story porches in Petersburg as examples. Mr Battiston asked if something of this construction would need to go through Code Compliance, staff stated that it probably would because of railing regulations. Mr Battiston explained that full plans would be necessary before going to Code, and asked if the back was visible from public right of way; staff stated that it was not, so the back porch construction would only need to go through Code with dimensions, footings, materials, etc. Mr Battiston asked what would be next in the plans. Mr Smith stated that there would be an emphasis on one side of the building; putting up the synthetic roof. Mr Battiston asked if he would be repointing and what the age of the building was. The applicant said yes and it was built 1873, Mr Battiston explained that you have to be careful with repointing old bricks because the mortar was made differently, so no Portland cement, and he would need to find the correct mortar mix. Mr Ward asked if staff would be able to help the applicant, staff stated that she offered assistance but schedules never seemed to allow it. Mr Ward stated that the focus should be on the roof first because it’s a good place to start, and asked if the board was ok with that. Mr Lunsford requested seeing product information on the roof material, Ms Wynn asked if there was a brochure for it. Mr Ward asked if the materials could be kept with staff, the applicant agreed. Mr Ward asked that the dimensions match the existing roof, and stated that this must be verified with staff before work can begin, and the applicant should sit with staff to go over everything needed for further renovations; Mr Smith agreed to this. Mr Battiston asked what was next in the applicant’s plans, Mr Smith stated that would be electric, HVAC and internal work. Mr Battiston explained internal work was not within the ARB’s purview, and asked what would be next externally after that. Mr Smith stated it would be the brick work. Mr Battiston asked if staff would assist with the mortar formula, staff agreed. Mr Battiston added that you must watch the amount of lime used in the mix so it can hold but not damage the bricks. Mr Ward stated that Code regulations should be mentioned in the COA issued. Staff agreed. Mr Battiston asked the fence priority, Mr Smith stated in the next few months, and he would check with the fence company for alternate heights to comply with zoning regulations for a 3’6” maximum height in the front yard. Mr Pradia asked 3  if the applicant still wanted lights on the fence, the applicant stated he did not. Mr Lunsford asked the applicant also get installation and attachment information. Mr Pradia asked if the house was secure, Mr Smith stated it would be boarded up. No public comment. Mr Ward made a motion to approve the roof and fence with these conditions: The roof is based on the sample material on record with staff. Staff will verify existing dimensions and proposed installation dimensions to ensure they match. All trim will also be verified to match original, ex: edge cap. The fence approved when staff verifies manufactural model number and specifications to confirm it is the same as the sample provided at the July 2018 ARB meeting, and that the height be between 36” and 42” The remainder of the application is currently denied due to lack of information. The motion was seconded by Ms Wynn, and passed unanimously. d. 712 Harrison Street: Applicant present, Al Smith. Staff recommended approval only if materials and dimensions were presented before use. Mr Smith stated that his priorities for this house were landscaping and fixing a termite problem. Mr Battiston asked if the house was structurally infested or in the interior, Mr Smith said it was part of the porch woodwork and he would be getting a termite inspector to evaluate the house. Mr Battiston explained he would need approval once he knows what needs replaced. Mr Battiston asked what the applicant’s next priority was, Mr Smith stated that there was asbestos in the exterior walls and he wanted to replace them with hardiplank. Mr Battiston asked if that siding could be matched, Mr Lunsford stated that he did not think so, and suggested to look up hardiplank and find something that looks similar. Mr Battiston asked if the house was the same siding all around, Mr Smith stated that the front wall was brick, Mr Battiston said that any decent siding on less visible locations should be moved to more visible locations, and new similar looking material should be used in those less visible locations. Mr Ward asked about the roof, the applicant stated it was good. Mr Ward asked about the windows, the applicant stated they needed replaced. Mr Ward asked about the soffets, the applicant stated they would need replaced as well. Mr Battiston asked if the applicant would bring these things back to them, the applicant stated he would. Mr Battiston asked if there was anything else for this meeting, Mr Smith said no. Mr Ward asked what the landscaping would include, Mr Smith stated pruning and clean up. Ms Wynn mentioned that any work on the porch would have to come back. 4  No public comment. A motion was made by Mr Ward to approve the siding in that inconspicuous siding would be relocated to repair damage on visible sides. The rest of the application would be tabled until the next meeting. The motion was seconded by Ms Wynn and passed unanimously. e. 116 W. Bank Street: Representative present, Kathryn Pugh. Staff recommended approval of the proposed application. Mr Ward clarified the location of the existing bracket on the building. No public comment. Motion made by Mr Pradia to approve the application as submitted, seconded by Mr Ward. Motion passed unanimously. f. 422 High Street: Applicant present, Michael Allshouse. Staff recommended approval of the proposed application. Mr Battiston clarified the location of the proposed work, that it would be the east side of Lafayette Street, and that the fence would be 42” high. Mr Allshouse explained that due to the slope of the land, the fence and wall would be stepped for safety. Mr Pradia asked if this work was permanent, Mr Allshouse said it’s listed as temporary. Mr Pradia asked what would be done on the other side of Lafayette Street, Mr Allshouse stated that there was an old fire line buried there and the owners are afraid it’s still active. Mr Pradia questioned the size of the planters, Mr Allshouse said the cement cutouts were 8’x8’. Mr Battiston asked what plants would go in them, the applicant was not sure. Mr Battiston stated that when that information is available to present it to staff for administrative plant approval to not slow the project down. No public comment. Motion to approve the application as submitted made by Ms Wynn, with the exception that prior to landscaping materials being used they are presented to staff for approval. The motion was seconded by Mr Pradia and passed unanimously. g. 624-626 Grove Avenue: 5 Applicant present; Caron Nazario. Staff recommended approval of the application, if repair of materials was considered before replacement. Mr Nazario stated that the doors were completely rotted, there are insects and the rot is spreading. Mr Battiston asked if they were too far gone, the applicant stated yes. Mr Nazario explained that the front windows actually did not have muttons, it was just caulking, no wood or insulation. Mr Battiston asked if any good windows from the side or rear could be moved to the front, Mr Nazario stated that he had them all measured and most are different sizes. Mr Battiston asked about the doors, Mr Nazario said that they don’t make doors like that anymore. Mr Battiston said that he would need a transom. Mr Nazario stated that the transom would need its own support system under it, Mr Ward clarified that meant a beam over the door and sidelights, under the transom. Mr Battiston stated that they do make doors with transoms as one unit. Mr Nazario said that the dimensions were different and he would need custom doors. Mr Battiston said the transom should be the same width as the door. Mr Lunsford asked who the applicant was getting them from, the applicant stated Pella. Mr Battiston said that as one piece it may cost less, Mr Nazario stated that Pella said they had to do it separately. Mr Battiston expressed his concern that it would look too bulky, and Mr Ward explained it shouldn’t look like a separate window, then it won’t look cohesive; right now it’s all one piece with subsets. Mr Nazario said the plan is to make it look like it is one unit. Mr Nazario stated that the doors would be wood, but to have a warranty it would have to be faced with fiberglass but look the same as plain wood. Mr Battiston said that would not fly. Mr Lunsford stated that he knows it would last longer but its not acceptable in the historic districts. Mr Battiston said that it was not just the decision of the board, but a decision dictated by the National Park Service. Mr Lunsford stated that Pella has a historical line of just wood. Mr Ward asked if the applicant would apply for tax credits, Mr Nazario stated that he would be living in the house. Mr Ward asked if the rough dimensions would be changed for any openings, the applicant said no, they would remain the same. Mr Battiston stated that the applicant would need to use only wood, and that Pella has an all wood historical line. Mr Ward suggested that the applicant go to Richmond Department of Historic Resources for tax credit review. No public comment. Mr Lunsford made a motion to approve the application with these conditions: That the rough openings remain the same, and the wood frame/jam Transom assembly is integrated with door assembly, no excessive margin jam to jam so it looks like one unit. Plans are verified with Preservation Planner. The applicant will come back for the windows. 6  Mr Ward asked if the windows are irreparable, Mr Narzario stated that he was just replacing the front with the fake putty muttons because the wood is rotted. Mr Lunsford stated that he could just replace the sash with a sash kit. Mr Nazario stated that he wanted the windows to function, Mr Lunsford stated that they would function with the sash kit, and doesn’t recommend changing the whole window. Mr Battiston said the sash pack would cost less. Mr Ward made an amendment to the motion, that the existing openings would not be changed; as 4 windows and 2 doors. Replace with exactly what is there and confirm it with staff. Amended motion was seconded by Ms Wynn and passed unanimously. h. 239 S. Adams Street: Applicant present, Bruce Noe. Staff recommended approval of the proposed application. Mr Battiston asked if all the materials would be in-kind, Mr Noe said no. The current steps were put in late 20th century and repaired. They have rotted and the applicant stated that he had already taken the stairs down; there were also termites in parts. The posts were 1 ½ from Home Depot and not pressure treated. Mr Noe said that he won’t use pressure treated wood because it warps in pilasters, but he will use it for the treads and will have the risers out of PVC boards. Mr Battiston stated that he could not use PVC boards. Mr Noe stated that rule should be changed. Mr Battiston suggested using painted pine for the risers. Mr Noe stated again that he wanted the rule to be changed, this application was not for tax credits. Mr Battiston stated that the decision on PVC boards comes from the Secretary of the Interior’s level. Mr Pradia confirmed that the applicant wanted to use the PVC boards for the stair risers, and said that for his stairs he used African mahogany. Mr Lunsford said that he loves PVC but it can’t be used for risers, he suggested using factory primed white board 1/6 1/10, it’s primed and coated white wood. Mr Battiston asked if it would be as good as yellow pine, Mr Lunsford said probably. Mr Battiston expressed his willingness to change the rule, but said there was no wiggle room in this situation. Mr Noe stated that you could not buy ¾ inches or 7/4 inches in wood for risers. Mr Lunsford commented that when PVC board is painted you don’t know what it is. Mr Battiston stated that the applicant had to stick with what’s allowed, and again expressed his like of yellow pine because it holds up. Mr Noe stated that the risers are where water builds up. Mr Battiston stated that he had no answer to that besides to use wood. Staff clarified that the proposed location for PVC board would be visible from the street. Ms Wynn asked if the applicant would consider any other materials, Mr Noe said no. No public comment. 7  A Motion was made by Mr Lunsford to approve the application as submitted with the exception of the use of PVC; the material has to be wood, and suggests factory primed white wood or yellow pine. Motion seconded by Ms Wynn and passed unanimously. i. 117-119 S. South Street Applicant present, R.J. Bragg. Staff recommended approval of the proposed application only if materials and dimensions were presented before use. Ms Bragg stated that she was requesting permission to repair the roof and front corner of the house and expressed her desire to follow the historic district design guidelines. Her expectations are to rehab the home to live-in condition by the guidelines’ standards. Mr Battiston asked if the soffits and corner would be repaired in the same material, the applicant said yes. Mr Battiston said that siding should only be replaced if it’s necessary; some is usable and fixable. Mr Ward asked if the applicant would be matching the damaged corner to the other corner, Ms Bragg said yes. No public comment. Motion was made by Mr Ward to approve the application in that all materials would be in-kind, and the damaged corner would be repaired to match the other corner. The motion was seconded by Ms Wynn and passed unanimously. j. 1115-1117 West High Street Applicant present, Keonte Crenshaw. Staff recommended denial of the application, but approval to remove the unstable addition to secure the house for safety. Mr Battiston commented that there have been a lot of demolition applications lately, and they should stick to the sale procedure as a consistent recommendation. Mr Battiston confirmed that this application was also to remove the back addition of the house. The applicant said yes, there are a lot of children and animals around, there are nails and bugs and soon the addition will fall on its own. Mr Battiston confirmed he was looking to remove the addition and would come back for the demolition. Mr Battiston asked if anyone else would speak for or against the application. Tim Turner came forward, and stated that his recommendation is to demolish for foundation issues, sell the house to his investors, and construct it back. No further public comment, Motion made by Ms Wynn to accept the removal of the addition and securing of the property, so it can be put up for sale for the amount of time set in the zoning ordinance; when that time has passed the applicant can come back for the 8  demolition request. The motion was seconded by Mr Pradia and passed unanimously. a. 116 Liberty Street Applicant still not present. Staff asked if the application could be reviewed in the absence of the applicants, staff recommended approval. Mr Lunsford asked how a 4 foot high fence could be approved in the front yard, staff clarified that the fence was flush with the front of the house, therefore was not susceptible to the 3 ½ foot rule for front yards. No public comment. Mr Ward made a motion to approve the application as long as the fence matches the photos presented. Motion seconded by Mr Pradia and passed unanimously. 6. OLD BUSINESS Staff informed the board that according to the ARB ordinances, elections for chairman and vice-chairman should have been held at the July meeting. Ms Wynn nominated Joe Battiston for Chairman, seconded by Mr Ward. Mr Lunsford amended the motion to keep the positions in the same arrangement; motion seconded and passed unanimously. 7. NEW BUSINESS 8. ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS 9. ADJOURNMENT Mr Ward motioned to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Ms Wynn. Motion passed unanimously and the meeting was adjourned. 9