Architectural Review Board

Architectural Review Board City of Petersburg, Virginia Minutes of the Regular Meeting December 12, 2018 6:00 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall 135 N. Union Street, Petersburg VA 23803 Members Present: Chair, Joe Battiston Celeste Wynn Larry Murphy Substitute Members: Planning Director, Michelle Peters Members Absent: Mitchell Pradia Vice-Chair, Isaac Ward Dino Lunsford 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, December 12, 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 and November 14, 2018 minutes were presented. Mr Murphy motioned to approve the minutes, seconded by Ms Wynn. Motion passed unanimously. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Ms Wynn 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 1 Regular Agenda: a. 702-708 Harrison Street: Applicant present, Al Smith. Staff recommended denial of the application as originally presented. Mr Battsiton asked if the applicant understood that his design was too ornate; fancy sounds like a good idea, however changes have to be in tune with existing conditions, which are currently plain. Mr Battiston asked if some of the details could be removed from the drawing to make it less ornate. Mr Smith said he would remove the two outward curved paths, but said he wants to encourage residents to be active, walk around, have healthy living and not just sit; but he was open to take some off his plans. Mr Battiston said the paths should be in line with the structure. Mr Smith said he would like to keep the perimeter and center paths, Mr Battiston requested the applicant re-sketch the design to have on record. Mrs Peters questioned the flowers, Mr Battiston said the flowers would be fine, but the paved walkways were more concerning because the house is plain. Staff suggested, as per the staff recommendation, that a flowerbed may go around the perimeter of the yard. Mr Battiston said that was more common than diamond flowerbeds, and said that it would be ok to have a bed liner for trees, but not so much for flowers. Mr Smith asked if the re-sketch should include proposed flowers, the board agreed. No public comment. Mr Murphy moved to approve the application with the changes discussed to be re- sketched for administrative approval. Motion seconded by Ms Wynn and passed unanimously. c. 712 Harrison Street: Applicant present, Al Smith. Staff recommended denial of the proposed application due to lack of information. Mr Murphy stated that this project would need a Building Permit, which would require a lot more detail to be approved. Mr Battiston said the board needed more detail and suggested that next time the board should go out to look at the site separate from the ARB meeting. Mr Battiston asked the type of siding, it is asbestos. Mr Battiston asked the age of the building, it was built circa 1873. Staff stated that the applicant already had partial approval for the siding of the house. 2  Mr Battiston said that the applicant should provide as much detail as possible, because it is needed for a Building Permit anyway; need specifications from how the porch connects to the house, roof details, ect. Mrs Peters said the applicant should put the drawings together in advance of the January meeting and get with staff to ensure that they have enough detail. Mr Battiston suggested the application be deferred. The portion of the application requesting paint was questioned; Mr Smith said he would not be doing that right away. Ms Wynn stated the applicant received prior approval for site clean-up. No public comment. A motion was made to defer the application to the January meeting so all specifics could be in order. The motion was seconded by Mrs Peters and passed unanimously. c. 306 Hinton Street: Applicant present, Daniel Salley. Staff recommended approval if the proposed enclosure includes some element to differentiate it as new. Mr Battiston asked for clarification on staff’s recommendation to show the old porch. Staff explained her original idea was to show a false railing on the exterior of the second floor, but that may be too much, so some amount of trim to indicate the original two story porch could be sufficient. Mr Battiston suggested bull-nose trim where the floors are divided, 2 ½ or 3 inches wide, and not very protruding, otherwise the siding running unobstructed across would imply that the two story addition has always been there. Mr Salley agreed with this option. Mr Battiston confirmed the siding and trim would be wood, Mr Salley agreed. No public comment. Ms Wynn motioned to approve the application as submitted with the adjustment to include an exterior element to show the closed in floor separation. Motion was seconded by Mrs Peters and passed unanimously. d. 29 W. Tabb Street: Applicant not present. Staff recommended approval of the proposed application. The board asked staff to explain the fencing question, staff said a portion of the original wrought iron fence had been stolen years ago, so the applicant would like to know if those pieces have to be replaced in wrought iron even though he did not remove those panels, or if another metal to match the look of the original is acceptable. Mr Murphy estimated the missing portion of fence to be about 30 feet long. Mr Battiston said it would be hard to replicate the posts, and commented that the location is very visible so the fence should be replicated or a close match. Mr 3  Battsiton suggested the applicant check local people, he said the fence was removed for repairs and was stolen, so it’s possible to find the original; a fence was stolen on Liberty Street and was found elsewhere in the city. Mr Battiston suggested Colonial Iron Works in Petersburg or Andrew’s Iron Work in Dinwiddie for the posts to be replicated; the posts would be hard to replace, but the board may have to live with something not exact. Mrs Peters stated the windows were fine because they’re in-kind. Mr Battiston said in terms of the fence he would recommend reconstruction. No public comment. A motion was made by Mrs Peters to approve the in-kind window replacement, but deny desire to use alternate metal for fencing. Motion seconded by Ms Wynn and passed unanimously. e. 1013 W. High Street: Applicant not present. Ms Wynn motioned to move the application to the end of the agenda, motion seconded and passed unanimously. f. 127 W. Bank Street: Applicant present, Margaret Byrne. Staff recommended approval of the proposed application. Ms Byrne gave background on the status of the building; work was supposed to start in March but a lot of things happened. The first structural engineer had a stroke so the contractors had to wait, another engineer came the Sunday before the meeting (in the snow). A crack on the rear had gotten about 2 inches wider; it’s separating because the interior stair in that north east corner was braced wrong. The building needs walers on the east side but the applicant doesn’t own that alley. Mr Battiston asked if she could get access to that alley. Ms Byrne said the suggestion is to tie together the east side to the walers already on the west side on 129 W. Bank. Mr Battiston asked how far into the alley supports would go, Ms Byrne said about 3 feet, which would be in the middle of the alley. Mrs Peters commented that the alley needs to be accessible. Mr Battiston asked what the applicant was requesting, Ms Byrne said she was informing the board so it wouldn’t be a shock; originally the application was for foundation work but now the building might be lost, because in her opinion the city thinks the alley is more important than the building. Mrs Peters asked how long she might need in the alley, and said she’s not sure if the issue with the alley is politics but rather education; there’s got to be a medium somewhere, but who is impacted needs to know how long the alley will be gone. Ms Byrne said the contractor would need to converse with the structural engineer, but once they start 4 it could take a couple of months. The walers might not be out so long, need to tie east side to west and stitch together the floors and joists. Once that’s ok the north side can be done, may need new roof because the current roof is new but it wasn’t installed right. Mr Battiston said he was familiar with the building, and that the supports that used to be on the front were there for years, that’s why neighbors are concerned and the city would get flack if the alley is blocked for any length of time. Ms Byrne said they had been working since March, but it was hard to get good people, plus the rain delayed work. Ms Wynn asked if she was given a timeframe, Ms Byrne said they were supposed to start in November but with the rain they couldn’t. Ms Wynn asked even without the weather, what was the timeframe. Ms Byrne said she was not given a timeframe, only vague estimates. Mrs Peters apologized for any invasiveness, but asked that if all things work together on this project, financially could she take the financial responsibility to get the work done in two months. Ms Byrne reminded everyone that the reason the front work took so long because Dominion Power would not let them work so close to the power lines; she said they talked to them every day and tried to work with former City Manager David Canada; that’s what took so long, 80% was the fight with Dominion. Mrs Peters, as the Planning Director, said the Planning office was called so a meeting needs to be held to try and make everyone mostly happy and move along quickly. Mr Battiston said she needed a timeframe from the contractors, she may have a hard time with the history of the building, and it’s a contentious position for the city so they need solid estimates of time, weather issues aside. Mr Battiston said they don’t want to see the same trouble happening again where the old front supports had to be paved around. Ms Byrne said they wanted a pedestrian tunnel but the city wouldn’t allow it. Mr Battiston said she needs to give a realistic time so the city doesn’t get hung out to dry if deadlines aren’t met. Ms Byrne said she was nervous with deadlines. Mr Battiston asked that she look into timelines and get with Mrs Peters, but she needs information to be able to help. Ms Wynn asked if she told the contractors it was a die-hard situation and she needed it now; Ms Byrne said she had but that doesn’t work. Mr Murphy asked the applicant her opinion on what would happen; Ms Byrne said it will fail. It was fine for a long time, but has a perimeter of rubble and not a foundation, and before WWI the floors were lowered and it wasn’t done right, then the glass façade was installed and not supported which weakened the front, the tornado damaged it, and it’s no longer square the corners are all out of whack, when the middle building came down it lost all that support and had interior walls on the exterior. Mr Murphy asked if it would behoove the applicant to have an orderly demolition plan, Ms Byrne said yes, she would like to salvage and rebuild two buildings. Mr Murphy stated that he loves preservation, but sometimes its better to deconstruct and rebuild. Mr Battiston asked if the applicant had drawings, she said yes and detailed pictures. Ms Byrne said she can’t find anyone yet to rebuild with steel 5  and proper support. Mr Murphy said it will have to be to code. Ms Byrne said yes it would be with historic elements. Mr Battiston questioned if she had the funds for this, Ms Byrne said she had enough to stabilize but not enough to take it down and bring it back. Mr Murphy expressed his concern for safety, echoed by Mrs Peters. Ms Byrne agreed with the concern because the crack is getting bigger. Mr Battiston asked if this crack was caused by the mortar shell, but it was not, this was caused by the staircase and the lowering of the floors. Mr Battiston said years back there was a 6 inch gap. Ms Byrne stated the preliminary evaluation doesn’t think its eminent danger of collapse, but next week the engineer could say something else. Mr Battiston asked her to get a time commitment and talk with Mrs Peters. He said the ARB would have to approve the demolition if that’s the decision, but deconstruction is preferable. Ms Byrne said someone would be coming to price that. Mr Battiston suggested the applicant talk to Bobby Lynch, the former owner, or Melvin Davies who worked on it. Mrs Peters stated she was impressed with Ms Byrne’s knowledge of the building, and agreed with the suggestion to talk to Mr Davies or Mr Lynch; because if something is not done there will be an issue. Ms Byrne said people are coming through the barricades. Mr Battiston thought Bobby Lynch may have other ideas. Mrs Peters suggested meeting Friday. Ms Byrne expressed concern that a business owner on Bank Street may sue her for having the parking lot blocked. Mrs Peters said she would be talking with that person the next day. Mr Murphy questioned the gap in the roof, Ms Byrne said they were going to do that but the crack took precedence. Mr Murphy thought it would need a tarp. Ms Byrne said there’s no lime mortar on the top 6 courses of brick. Mr Battiston said to check with Melvin Davies then speak with Mrs Peters. e. 1013 W. High Street: Applicant still not present. Staff recommended approval of the application. Mr Murphy confirmed that the proposed windows were wood. No public comment. Mrs Peters motioned to approve the application, with a second from Ms Wynn. The motion passed unanimously. g. 30 Corling Street: Applicant not present. Staff recommended approval of the proposed application. Mr Battiston said built in gutters are a chronic problem, and asked what stance the board should take on them. Mr Battiston’s opinion was to keep them on commercial buildings but not for residential, because it can be an extreme cost. Mr Murphy stated that he had looked at the house before, the repairs are 6  expensive and need soffit work; now there is interior damage from water infiltration. Mr Murphy also said built in gutters can be eliminated, PVC can’t be used, but houses should have exterior gutters or none at all. Mr Battiston said gutters are needed to preserve the houses. Mr Murphy said there are cheaper ways, but with the guidelines the board’s hands are tied. Mr Battiston said the ARB is supposed to follow the guidelines, however houses are falling down because some things are too expansive. Mr Battiston mentioned a new building that was constructed but had to be taken down because of problems with built in gutters, and stated that he would like to allow them to go. Mr Murphy said to enclose the box and have gutters under the roof, the PVC board would be behind and not visible. Mr Battiston said ½ round gutters aren’t good because there’s only one way to attach them, but they’re still easier than built in gutters. Staff explained that this is a Project:HOMES job using CDBG money. Ms Wynn said she’s been having issues with the built in gutters, but they look nice; the board shouldn’t plant their heels but have options for people. Mr Murphy said they should given guidance; you have to be careful closing the box or it will leak. Mr Battiston said the board should stick with ½ round gutters, Ms Wynn added the use of a round downspout as well. Mr Murphy said the PVC would not be visible so it was ok; dentals won’t be visible but could be moved down. Staff pointed out a person would look up for the dentals, and in that case they would be visible. Mr Murphy agreed, and said fascia boards take the place of crown molding. No public comment. Mr Murphy motioned to approve the application with the note that built in gutters are properly sealed with adequate PVC fascia if hidden by gutter, with exterior half round gutters and round downspouts. Motion seconded by Ms Wynn and passed unanimously. 6. OLD BUSINESS 7. NEW BUSINESS - Heather Barrar and Wendy Austin presented Friends of the Lower Appomattox’s plan for the Appomattox River Trail in Petersburg. 8. ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS 9. WORK SESSION - The board expressed interest in DHR holding a workshop for the city’s guidelines to be updated. 10. ADJOURNMENT 7 A motion was made by Mrs Peters to adjourn the meeting seconded by Ms Wynn. passed unanimously and the meeting was adjourned. 8