Architectural Review Board

Architectural Review Board City of Petersburg, Virginia Minutes of the Regular Meeting November 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 Dino Lunsford Celeste Wynn Larry Murphy Members Absent: Mitchell Pradia 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, November 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. REVIEW OF MINUTES October 10, 2018 Minutes were not presented. Ms Wynn motioned to dispense of the review of the minutes, seconded by Mr Murphy. Motion passed unanimously. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr Ward moved to approve the agenda as presented, with a second from Mr Murphy. 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. 6. REQUEST(S) FOR CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS Consent Agenda: a. 105 N. Sycamore: 1  Approved with the unanimous approval of the agenda. Regular Agenda: b. 702-708 Harrison Street: Applicant present, Al Smith. Staff recommended approval of the application if more details were provided. Mr Smith presented the gate design he wished to use for his previously approved fence, and stated that he would come back with property plans for the proposed paths later, and he wants them to go around both sides of the buildings. Mr Battiston asked what else he planned to do. Mr Smith said shrubs and landscaping. Mr Battiston asked him to elaborate, Mr Smith said the walkway and add flowerbeds. Mr Battiston said he will have to come back with plans for the paths, and asked the size of the flowerbeds. Mr Smith explained they would be behind the fence in the front on either side of the path. Staff asked about what would be done with the partial concrete path that was already present. Mr Battiston explained that a sketch must be presented, the board could not approve what they cannot see, and also asked after the existing path. Mr Ward said that on plans, a dashed line is often used to represent demolitions/things to be removed; they would also need materials and specifications. Mr Battiston confirmed that the fence was already approved, the applicant was just seeking approval for the gate now, Mr Smith said yes. Mr Battiston stated that debris removal doesn’t need approval, and he already got approval for the roof. Mr Ward asked what had been tabled in the past for this application, since the board should make a final decision on each part of the application rather than postponing portions. No public comment. Mr Ward motioned to approve either option for the gate, to deny the paths and landscaping due to lack of information. The motion was seconded by Ms Wynn. Mr Battiston added that the applicant should include dimensions in the plans. Mr Murphy asked if the board should support a no-dig fence. Mr Lunsford suggested that the landscaping be approved administratively, and expressed concern that the fence would be flimsy. Staff pointed out that this was the same fence approved on 315 High Street. Ms Wynn added that when the fence was approved for this address at a previous meeting, the applicant was told to use a concrete base, Mr Smith agreed to this. The motion passed unanimously. c. 712 Harrison Street: Applicant present, Al Smith. Staff recommended approval of the application if more details were provided. 2  Staff asked if Mr Smith would be seeking approval for a rear addition at this time, Mr Smith stated that he would come back for that because the termite problem needs to be under control first. Mr Battiston asked what repairs needed to be done, Mr Smith said the possibly asbestos siding needs repaired, and at a previous board meeting he received approval to move the rear siding to the front. No public comment. Motion made by Mr Ward to approve the proposed gates but deny the paths, landscaping, and addition until further information is provided. Mr Murphy seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. d. 306 Hinton Street: Applicant not present. Mr Ward motioned to move the application to the end of the agenda, seconded by Ms Wynn. The motion passed unanimously. e. 39 Bollingbrook Street: Applicant present, Fatina Donester-King. Staff recommended approval of the proposed application. Ms Donester-King added that the lettering on the awning would be black. Mr Battsiton commented that it was odd to have two separate awnings over a storefront, Ms Donester-King stated she may add one over the door later. The board expressed that they liked the proposed awnings. Mr Lunsford asked if there were any restrictions on awning colors, Mr Battiston stated colors just have to work with the district. Mr Murphy asked if the awnings were covering transoms, Mr Battiston said the doors are visible and it's very attractive. Mr Battsiton asked who was making the awnings, Ms Donester-King said it was Robert’s Awnings. No public comment. A motion was made by Ms Wynn to approve the application, seconded by Mr Lunsford. Motion passed unanimously. f. 29 W. Tabb Street: Applicant not present. Mr Ward motioned to move the application to the end of the agenda, motion seconded by Mr Lunsford and passed unanimously. 3 g. 125 Marshall Street: Applicants present, Tony and Gwen Cooper. Staff recommended approval of the proposed application. Mr Cooper said that the contractor was not able to come, and explained that the trim is actually a beige/bone white color, and it will be repainted the same to match. Mr Battiston asked if the roof seam would be 1 inch or less, Mr Cooper said it was ¾ an inch. Mr Battiston asked if the distance between the seams would be the same, Mr Cooper said it would be about 9 inches between, which is close to original. Mr Battiston said it has to be similar. Mr Ward asked if they had trim dimensions or specifications. Mr Cooper said it would be the same as current. Mr Lunsford asked if there would be a drip edge, there would be. Mr Ward asked if the current roof was formed in place or if it had a ridge cap, Mrs Cooper said there was no ridge cap. Mr Battiston asked if anyone present would speak for or against the application. Amy Wilson, 508 W. South Blvd, expressed her support of the application. No further public comment. Mr Ward motioned to approve, with the exception that the trim be reviewed by staff to ensure it’s appropriate before it’s installed. Mr Lunsford added that the ridge cap should be low profile, Mr Ward pointed out that the ridge in the provided sample photo has a short ridge, Mr Battiston added that all of it should be low profile. The motion was seconded by Mr Murphy and passed unanimously. h. 1113 Upper Appomattox Street: Applicant present, Jason Spicer. Staff recommended partial approval with the exception of vinyl siding. Mr Battiston asked what the plans for the house were. Mr Spicer said it was a rehab to rent, the goal is to restore the house to original while also being energy efficient and cost effective. Mr Battiston stated that vinyl is a no-no; there can be variances by the time period of construction, for example hardiplank siding requires slightly less maintenance; the board would prefer wood, but Mr Battiston agreed with staff’s recommendation of hardiplank. Mr Spicer stated that it was partially aluminum siding on the rear but he didn’t think it would be visible. Mr Battiston said that if it’s not visible it’s fine, but in the future he should check and make sure first so that it would not need to be redone. Ms Wynn said the house was located in one of the newer historic districts, staff confirmed this. Mr Murphy stated that the board had to be diligent to not loose the historic designation of any of the local districts. Mr Murphy asked about the 4  columns pictured, Mr Spicer said those are temporary and the original columns would be refurbished. Mr Battiston asked what kind of windows were existent at the house, Mr Spicer said there were some vinyl, some metal, mixed throughout. Mr Battsiton asked if the front windows could be replaced with metal, Mr Spicer agreed. Mr Battiston stated that the board would prefer wood, but metal is ok. Mr Spicer asked if vinyl windows were ok for the sides, the board said yes. Mr Battiston asked about the door, staff described the current door as being very nonhistoric, probably installed in the 70s or 80s. Mr Ward questioned the relocation of the door; Mr Spicer explained they wanted to swap a window with the door to make the entrance in the middle of the façade. Mr Battiston asked why this was desired. Mr Spicer said it was a recommendation made by the construction team for better flow in the building. Mr Battiston said that would not be allowed. Staff commented that there was speculation the building had been a duplex. Mr Battiston stated that door and window openings should be left alone. Mr Spicer asked if moving openings on the back was acceptable, the board agreed as long as it couldn’t be seen from the street. Mr Murphy asked about the siding. Mr Spicer said it is aluminum now and vinyl isn’t allowed. Mr Battiston said either wood or hardiplank. Mr Ward said it should be the smooth style hardiplank. Mr Lunsford added 8 inches to 8 inches. Mr Battiston said they should match the dimensions of and original wood siding left under the aluminum. Mr Ward asked if the rear of the project was ok, staff said it wasn’t visible and it has more recent additions on it. Mr Ward said vinyl is acceptable on the sides, Mr Battiston added wood windows should be used on the front, and stated that wood or hardiplank siding would both be acceptable. Mr Ward added that contractors are supposed to obtain all permits, including COAs, staff commented that the original COA application was filled by one of the contractors. No public comment. A motion was made to approve the front door as submitted, but deny moving it. Approval of roof material, repair of columns, wood windows on the front and vinyl windows on the sides and rear. Trim specifications need to be presented to be approved administratively. Use of vinyl siding is denied, but use of wood or hardiplank is approved to match dimensions of existing siding. No action to be taken on the back door due to it not being visible. Motion seconded by Mr Lunsford and passed unanimously. Staff stated that the applicant would have to come back for changing the roof layout, which was something mentioned as future work by a contractor. i. 903 W. High Street: 5 Applicant present, Amy Wilson. Staff recommended approval of the application, with the exception of seeing door and window details. Mrs Wilson stated that work was going to start in the spring, but she received a violation letter from Code Compliance, so those issues will come first. Mr Battiston asked if there was anything else to be done besides what was listed by staff. Mrs Wilson said no, but asked if hardiplank would be an option for siding, based on the previous applicant’s approval. Mr Battiston said that hardiplank can’t be pieced together with wood, and Mr Ward said that hardiplank is a newer material, so it’s mainly allowed only for some cases in less visible areas of a house, if most of the original siding is ok. Mr Battiston explained the difference between this application and 1113 Upper Appomattox was that house already had aluminum siding, which is a newer material, so hardiplank was acceptable; hardiplank can’t just be used for repairs. Mrs Wilson asked if it could be used for complete replacement, the board stated it could not. Mrs Wilson said part of the siding was completely gone, Mr Ward said that would still be a repair, and it would need to be done in wood to match, so you can’t tell the difference between the old and new. Mr Battiston asked who in the area cuts siding, Mr Lunsford made some suggestions because it would be a limited quantity of wood. Mr Battiston said that the cheapest lasting type of wood would be southern yellow pine; paint also helps wood last, especially with a good primer. Staff mentioned the fence approval, Mrs Wilson said she wasn’t aware COAs only lasted a year, so she would like approval again for the fence. Mr Ward commented that it was a vague application with a lot of things needing to be done on the house; the board can’t authorize complete replacement of everything even windows and doors. Mrs Wilson said some windows are wood frame, she said she would like to replace them in-kind. Mrs Wilson added that the house also needs to be secured. Mr Ward confirmed that at this moment Mrs Wilson was not looking to replace the windows and doors, Mrs Wilson said yes. Mr Lunsford said immediate safety should come first. Mr Ward requested to delete doors and windows from the application, the applicant agreed. Mr Ward confirmed that she would replace the rotten siding and trim with wood that matches original. Mrs Wilson said she would meet with the wood people Mr Lunsford mentioned. Mr Ward asked if the siding percentage to be replaced was around 10%, and if the trim replacement was 50%. Mr Battiston asked if the applicant will do the repairs and not just cover the house, Mrs Wilson said yes. Mr Battiston mentioned that she would need a contractor; the wood people recommended were just for getting the materials. Mr Battiston added that the Board would need to see cut sheets for the proposed windows and doors before they receive approval. No public comment. 6  Mr Ward motioned to approve the application as noted- to repair/replace siding on up to 10% of the house, and up to 50% of non-siding. Staff will need confirmation that materials are in-kind. The application would no longer include windows and doors. Approval for the previously approved fence, approval for repointing of brick to be compliant with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards with staff to confirm this in the mortar composition; Mr Lunsford added that it would probably be type K. Mr Lunsford asked if the window panes were missing, the applicant said some. Mr Murphy asked why she received a violation, probably because the house is dangerous. The motion was seconded by Ms Wynn and passed unanimously. j. 36 N. Union Street: Applicant present, Pat Buchanan. Staff recommended approval of the proposed application. Mr Battiston asked why neon was not being used, Mr Buchanan said it was too expensive. Mr Lunsford said neon would look good with the Union Pen sign on the same street. Mr Lunsford asked if he should recuse himself as he had done contracting work for the building. The Board decided this was not necessary because he wasn’t doing any work in regards to the sign. Mr Murphy asked if the sign was back-lit. Mr Buchanan explained that the letters were stud mounted, so the sign would be halo lit. Mr Battiston commented that the board had approved a halo lit sign for Saucey’s BBQ. Mr Buchanan added that the side profile doesn’t show that the letters are raised, and the acrylic backer isn’t visible. No public comment. Mr Ward motioned to approve the application for a halo lit sign, seconded by Mr Murphy. The motion passed unanimously. k. 1013 W. High Street: Applicant present, Adam Wapniarz. Staff recommended approval of the proposed application. Mr Wapniarz said that he’s been here 12 years and wants West High to be a nice street. Mr Battiston stated that he’s got to come in before the work is done. Mr Wapniarz said he and his business partner want to make houses pretty, they always use the right materials, metal and wood. Mr Battiston complimented their work, but stated that Board approval is required for their work, and they can’t let Creative Painting’s work slide. 7  Mr Wapniarz showed a photo of the detail work on the porch and said they make the woodwork. Mr Murphy asked about the fence. Mr Wapniarz said it was for safety. Mr Battiston stated that the height was ok for not being in the front yard, and reminded the applicant that he would have to wait a year to paint it. Staff commented that the fence stretched across to the next house. Mr Wapniarz stated he owned both properties. It was determined that this was a question for zoning. Mr Battiston said if the fence is approved, it should be added in the motion for staff to check on the zoning legality of it. Mr Wapniarz said they found an old door to use. Mr Battiston asked about the windows, Mr Wapniarz said they were all gone, and proposed doing wood on the front and vinyl on the sides. Mr Battiston said this would not be acceptable. Mr Wapniarz said they had already been purchased, Mr Battiston said vinyl would still not be acceptable. Mr Wapniarz asked about the rear of the house, it was determined that this would not visible, Mr Battiston said it could still not be supported. Mr Lunsford said it’s hard to police that but violations can be caught. Mr Battiston commented that the doors were beautiful, Mr Wapniarz asked about storm doors. Ms Wynn asked if there was a storm door there, Mr Wapniarz said probably. Mr Battiston said sometimes there can be a wooden screen. Mr Wapniarz asked about the bad curbs on the street. The city has been notoriously bad at getting them done themselves and many citizens have had to pay to get them done privately. Mr Battiston said you have to be annoying to get the city to do things, and suggested talking to the Councilperson for his Ward or the City Manager. No public comment. Mr Ward made a motion to approve the application and authorize staff to approve the fence for adjoining properties as long it was acceptable by zoning regulations. Motion seconded by Mr Lunsford and passed unanimously. The applicant was reminded that his work needs approval before it’s started. l. 209 S. Jefferson Street: Applicant not present. Staff recommended approval of the proposed alterations to the application. Mr Battiston commented that it would be good, and asked the color of the roof; it would be grey. No public comment. Mr Murphy motioned to approve the wood siding and metal roof for the detached garage. Motion seconded by Mr Lunsford and approved unanimously. 8  d. 306 Hinton Street: Applicant still not present. It was determined that the application had to be denied based on lack of information. Mr Battiston commented that the applicant needed to be there to answer questions. Mr Lunsford said he should resubmit the application, but expressed a displeasure on holding the applicant up. No public comment. Mr Ward motioned to deny the application based on lack of information, as the drawings were not to scale and the applicant was not present. Motion seconded by Mr Murphy and passed unanimously. f. 29 W. Tabb Street: Applicant still not present. Mr Battiston commented that it was a very visible house, and that the proposed AC units were in the best spot. Mr Lunsford asked about fencing for the units, Mr Battiston said that was probably not necessary; but the applicant should be told to keep the units low to the ground. No public comment. Ms Wynn motioned to approve the application, with a note to keep the units as low as possible. Seconded by Mr Lunsford and passed unanimously. 6. OLD BUSINESS 7. NEW BUSINESS - Vacant architect position: Staff informed the board that two applicants had come forward; Terry Ammons and Kevin Spenson. - FOLAR Trails: Staff presented a written statement from Heather Barrar announcing the upcoming project to continue the Appomattox River Trail through Petersburg. 8. ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS 9. WORK SESSION - Request for administrative approval for more than two paint colors: Staff explained that the two color admin colors discourage applicants from going to the board. Mr Ward suggested admin approval for 4 colors. Staff added that questionable colors would still be brought forward to the board. 9  A motion was made by Mr Murphy to give the Secretary to the ARB administrative approval authority for 4 paint colors plus a roof color. Motion seconded by Ms Wynn and passed unanimously. - Concept for 111 S. Market Street to be used as a “garden house”: Mr Battiston stated that the covenants on the house’s deed would never allow for this. 10. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Mr Murphy to adjourn the meeting seconded by Ms Wynn. passed unanimously and the meeting was adjourned. 10