Architectural Review Board

Architectural Review Board City of Petersburg, Virginia Minutes of the Regular Meeting October 10, 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 Dino Lunsford Mitchell Pradia Celeste Wynn 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, October 10, 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 September 12, 2018 Minutes were presented. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Staff informed the board that the applicant for 702-708 and 712 Harrison would not be present. Pradia motioned to defer the application to the next meeting. The motion was seconded and 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. 6. REQUEST(S) FOR CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS Regular Agenda: 1 c. 8 W. Bank Street: Applicant present, Kelivn Clay; 15 W. Old Street, Apt 5, Petersburg. Mr Clay explained that the sign would look exactly like the sample presented, just a little bigger and in wood. Mr. Lunsford asked when the business would be open; Mr Clay explained that due to family emergencies, it’s been delayed. No public comment. A motion was made by Mr Lunsford to approve the sign as submitted, as long as it goes through and is approved by the Zoning sign permit process. Motion seconded Ms Wynn, and passed unanimously. d. 420 Cross Street: Applicant present, Kim Davis-Potts. Staff recommended approval of proposed application. Mrs Davis-Potts explained that there were a lot of things to do to bring the house back to being historic. Mr Lunsford commented that the “tiny house” trend stared in the 1800s. Mr Battiston said that the windows and doors were boarded up, the applicant would need to come back to get those approved. Mrs Davis-Potts stated that they are still there and appear intact. Mr Battiston said if any do need replaced, it’s something that has to be reviewed. Mr Battiston questioned the hardiplank siding proposed. Mrs Davis-Potts said there were two types of boards on the house, and the rear has OSB and the siding is beaded. Mr Battiston said that whichever is the original should be used as the basis for replacement. Mr Lunsford stated that Portland cement can’t be used for repointing, and confirmed that she would be using a lime based mortar. Mrs Davis-Potts confirmed that she would use the recommendations staff provided to her. Mr Ward questioned if the steps could be approved by staff if drawings were provided, the board agreed. Mr Lunsford commented that with only two steps they shouldn’t need a hand rail. Staff questioned whether the flat or beaded hardiplank would be used. Mr Ward said flat, and that it should be smooth rather than with an exaggerated wood grain look. No public comment. 2  Motion made by Mr Ward to approve the application for the use of smooth hardiplank, and for the stair design to be approved administratively by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr Pradia and approved unanimously. e. 306 Hinton Street: Applicant present, Daniel Salley. Staff recommended denial of the proposed application. Mr Salley stated that he had been in the military and now wants to work on improving the house. Mr Battiston asked why, since the house was already large. Mr Salley said there was already decking on the addition and water was getting into the kitchen. Mr Battiston asked if the ground floor of the addition was enclosed, Mr Salley stated only enclosed with latus. Mr Battiston asked how water was getting in, Mr Salley said because it was open. Mr Battiston asked why he didn’t just address the water leak versus enclosing the whole porch since it’s already a big house. Mr Battiston said that normally things to the rear of properties aren’t a big deal because they aren’t visible, however, in this case it is very visible and an architecturally significant porch. Mr Battiston asked if there was plywood under the wrap, Mr Salley said yes. Mr Battiston asked if it would be difficult to remove, Mr Salley said that it would be, and the top was leaning down. Mr Battiston stated that the latus probably wasn’t original, but the two story open porch was. Mr Battiston asked if it was already done on the inside; Mr Lunsford clarified by asking if it was wired; Mr Salley said not completely, and showed pictures of the interior showing it was just framed. Mr Ward asked for clarification on the condition of the house when the applicant purchased it. Mr Salley said that some of the wood was deteriorated and some was ok. Mr Battiston said they could assume that the top and bottom of the porch were the same originally. Mr Salley stated that the materials were new, but the 1903 Sanborn map shows that it existed as a two story porch that long ago. Mr Ward asked if there’d been any changes to the roof, Mr Salley said it was some kind of sealant coating and not tin. Mr Ward said it was probably tar, Mr Battiston said it was probably tin with tar over it. Mr Ward said that with the roof angled to the broad side of the house, water was leaking into the window (on the second floor of the main house directly where the roof of the porch ends). The primary issues with water were probably caused by the roof rather than the porch; water was shedding into the window down the wall. Mr Lunsford said the flashing needed to be checked. Mr Ward explained that flashing acts like gutters to channel water, if there wasn’t sufficient flashing the condition of the wood siding needed checked, and asked if there was already a metal strip present. Mr Salley said that there was, but the board found his estimation of the height to be insufficient; Mr Ward said 4-5 inches would be ideal to keep water from overflowing over the flashing and getting into the walls, 3 and to protect from ice damming. Mr Salley asked if he could not enclose the porch, because that would fix the problem. Mr Battiston said he would still have the water problems. Mr Ward suggested a triangle shaped kick-out on the porch roof to divert water even more away from the window. Mr Lunsford commended that the applicant already had the work framed. Ms Wynn said he needed to take care of the leaks first. Mr Battiston asked Mr Salley what his intentions were if the porch was to be enclosed. Mr Salley said he would match the main house, expand the kitchen on the first floor, and prevent the water leaks. Mr Pradia asked if he had kept the railings from the porch, Mr Salley said he had kept a lot, but there was dry rot in some and in the fascia boards. Mr Lunsford summarized the porch timeline: it was first a two story open porch, then the lower floor was enclosed just with latus by a previous owner. Mr Ward added that the lower floor porch posts were also replaced with studs along with the latus. Mr Battiston said that DHR would probably prefer to see a separation in the porches, Mr Salley said he didn’t expect a historic renovation to be so difficult. Mr Lunsford suggested he speak with Reggie Tabor for the economic side of the issue, and said this was a tough case because it wouldn’t normally be allowed. Mr Battiston added that it was also a very visible alteration, even with trees. Mr Lunsford stated that if this was approved it will set a precedent. Mr Battiston said that the board had denied something like this in the past in Poplar Lawn, and it was less visible. Mr Ward stated that they could not mandate him to return the first floor to his original condition when he wasn’t the one who did that. Mr Battiston suggested a waterproof membrane floor on the second floor porch. Mr Ward said that replacing the latus on the first floor with siding would probably be ok, but not on the second, however this could be considered an isolated incident for enclosure to protect the house as a whole from the water issue. Ms Wynn questioned a potential membrane floor on an open second floor, Mr Lunsford clarified that that floor would basically be a flat roof. Mr Battiston stated that it may be better to enclose the porch for the betterment of the house as a whole. Mr Ward stated again that they could not make the applicant un-enclose the first floor. Mr Lunsford commented that he did not like the way it was being enclosed because it is too modern looking, and said the house should be matched. Mr Ward pointed out staff’s mention of not creating a false historic narrative by making the enclosure look original. Mr Lunsford commented that there were too many different windows. Mr Battiston asked why the applicant proposed horizontal windows, Mr Salley said they would not fit normally, because of the slant of the roof that wall is shorter. Mr Battsiton suggested shorter double hung windows, Mr Salley said he would have to change the framing. 4  Mr Ward stated that the board needed to see scaled elevations showing all the trim and deviations proposed to make sure the changes are compatible and looks right with the house as a whole. Mr Lunsford added that it needed to flow. Mr Battiston said that the small 1inch bump out between the addition and the porch needed to remain to show the change; if the porch enclosures were flush with the rear wall of the addition, it would look as if it was always like that. Mr Battiston said that they needed to see a rendition of what it will look like, and added that small, double hung windows would be more visually appropriate than the sideways sliders he proposed. Mr Ward said the designs need to be to scale, and reminded Mr Salley that the design should differentiate but be compatible. No public comment. Mr Ward motioned to defer the applications until drawings could be presented. Motion seconded by Mr Pradia and passed unanimously. f. 405 Grove Avenue: Applicant present, Harriet Wynn. Staff recommended approval of the proposed application. There was board discussion on whether or not the porch at 419 Grove Avenue was approved; it had come before the board but never received a COA. The board stated that it was appropriate and should be approved. Ms Harriet Wynn explained that restoration work that had been done on the house was done poorly. The board asked for clarification on the height of the fence, Ms Harriet Wynn said 6 feet or as high as she can go, starting where her neighbor’s fence ends. Mr Battiston confirmed that there would be no 6 foot fence in the front yard, and added that because the wood was pressure treated she would have to wait a year for painting. Board member Wynn asked if the back porch would mimic 419 Grove, the applicant said yes, with both floors covered. Mr Battiston said that tin which matches the dimensions of the main house should go on the porch roof, and said that staff could review the dimensions and confirm that they are appropriate. Mr Battiston also said that a 1 inch seam can be acceptable if the main house is ¾ inch. Mr Ward said it should be a low profile ridge cap. Staff asked to confirm if the roof of the porch would be above or below the attic vent, Ms Harriet Wynn said she was not sure. No public comment. 5  A motion was made by board member Wynn to approve porch removal and reconstruction replicating 419 Grove Ave with its measurements, with the condition of staff approval of materials, and to approve the proposed fence and roof to be tin. Motion seconded by Mr Lunsford and passed unanimously. g. 635 Plum Street: Applicant present, Joan Owen. Staff recommended approval of the proposed application. Mr Battsiton expressed his approval of the application, and stated that staff would need to administratively approve the dimensions of the panels, locally they’re usually 1 inch or less. Mr Battiston asked if anyone would speak for or against the application; Ms Harriet Wynn expressed her support for the application. No other public comment. Motion made by Mr Ward to approve the application with staff confirmation of roof dimensions. Motion seconded by Ms Wynn and passed unanimously. Ms Owen said that she appreciated the ARB and the people there. 6. OLD BUSINESS 7. NEW BUSINESS -Expiration of Board members’ terms and resignation of Gibson Worsham: Mr Ward said that his background was not enough to count as an architect, but suggested Mr Rick Hayne. Ms Wynn suggested asking Mr Worsham for recommendations. Mr Battiston suggested asking at Enteros Design. 8. ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS 9. WORK SESSION 10. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made and seconded to adjourn the meeting by Mr Ward. The motion was seconded by Ms Wynn and passed unanimously and the meeting was adjourned. 6