Architectural Review Board

Architectural Review Board City of Petersburg, Virginia Minutes of the Regular Meeting January 9, 2019 6:00 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall 135 N. Union Street, Petersburg VA 23803 Members Present: Chair, Joe Battiston Celeste Wynn Larry Murphy 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, January 9, 2019 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 December 12, 2018 minutes were presented. Mr Battiston corrected that in item D, 29 W. Tabb St, the wording should be changed from “easy” to “hard.” A motion was made by Ms Wynn to approve the minutes with this change made, seconded by Mr Murphy. Motion passed unanimously with Mr Ward and Mr Pradia abstaining due to their absence that meeting. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr Ward moved to approve the agenda and consent 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: 1 a. 16 W. Old Street: This item was approved in the consent agenda. Regular Agenda: b. 734 Harrison Street: Applicant present, Matthew Morgan from Project:HOMES. Staff recommended approval of the proposed application. Mr Morgan explained that this project was a partnership between Project:HOMES and Rebuilding Together with the Partners for Neighborhood Renewal and CDBG; the home is owner occupied. It was clarified that the front half of the house has a tin roof which will be repaired, and the rear half, which is not visible from the street, has asphalt shingles which will be replaced in-kind. Mr Ward asked if the new windows were to be on the rear; Mr Bob Lytle, architect for Rebuilding Together, said yes, the new windows would not be on the sides. Mr Battiston asked if they would be keeping the tin on addition #1, Mr Morgan said yes. Mr Battiston asked about the siding on addition #1, Mr Lytle proposed hardiplank on the sides; Mr Battiston stated the ARB strongly prefers wood. Mr Lytle said the problem with wood is its durability, it needs a rain slicker. Mr Battiston asked if the hardiplank would have the same profile as the existing wood, Mr Lytle said they would have the new type with comparable exposure and same shadow line- at 30 feet away you can’t tell the difference. Mr Battiston said it has to have the appearance of wood, this part of the house is set back. Mr Murphy stated that the Board has requested wood in visible locations in the past, this should have wood on the sides. Mr Battiston said addition #2 is a small area, so hardiplank on the rear is fine because it can’t be seen, it’s possible to take wood from the rear if it’s good and use that on the sides. Mr Morgan asked that since addition #1 is still an addition, why can’t it have hardiplank? Mr Battiston said it’s an old addition; so hardiplank on the rear but wood on the sides. Mr Murphy asked for curiosity if wooden steps would go on the back, Mr Lytle said yes. No public comment. Mr Murphy moved to approve the application with the changes discussed – for wood siding on the south and north sides and hardiplank on the west side. Motion seconded by Ms Wynn and passed unanimously. c. 212 Liberty Street: Applicants present, Mary Kay Huss and Bob Lytle from Rebuilding Together and Matthew Morgan from Project:HOMES. Staff recommended approval. Mr Battiston asked if the exterior stairs would be replicated, Mr Lytle said they’re not sure, but the stairs are unsafe now; there is interior access. Mr Battiston suggested the door was added for multifamily access. Ms Huss said probably, but 2  the house is single family now. Mr Battiston said then if the stairs are removed it would take it back to the appearance of a single family. Ms Huss said the family doesn’t use the door. Mr Battiston speculated that the door may have been made from a window opening, and asked if they would put a window back in its place after removing the stairs. Ms Huss and Mr Lytle were unsure. Mr Battiston said if it’s removed and replaced with a window it needs to be approved and documented. Mr Lytle commented that the stairs aren’t original. Ms Huss asked if they would need to come back, Mr Battiston said staff could administratively approve if the window matches the current windows; but not if the window is aluminum or different because of DHR regulations. Mr Ward explained what was meant by the term “in-kind” and asked if any of the work to be done on the house would not be in-kind, Mr Lytle said no. Mr Battiston said that if there’s any change to that to check with staff, because it may be an administrative approval. No public comment. Mr Ward motioned to approve the application with the note that all repairs are in- kind, and remove the exterior stairs as an option; staff will review options associated with stair removal. Motion seconded by Mr Murphy and passed unanimously. d. 438 S. Sycamore Street: Applicant present, Celestine Hicks. Staff recommended approval. Ms Hicks said she’d been trying to find rails and spindles to match but can’t get it exact so they might be a different size. Mr Battiston suggested she bring a sample, Ms Hicks said she could show photos; one was different style and one was the same as existing but a little smaller. Mr Battiston asked how much smaller, Mr Murphy asked if they would all need replacing. Ms Hicks said they were damaged from rain and poor gutters, and guessed the sample was probably half the size of the originals. There was discussion amongst the board about the photos. Mr Battiston said that if the material was white wood it would need to be replaced again quickly, Ms Hicks said she didn’t think it was white wood, but a pressure treated wood. Mr Battiston asked that she get the measurements for staff, and stated that she isn’t expected to find identical pickets, as long as the sizing is close enough staff can do an administrative approval. No public comment. Mr Ward motioned to give staff the authority to see the comparison between existing and balusters and approve them administratively. Motion seconded by Ms Wynn and passed unanimously. 3 6. OLD BUSINESS 7. NEW BUSINESS - Andrew Cushner, 125 Marshall Street, a realtor in historic homes, came forward. He asked if there was a program for excess properties with the city and realtors. Mr Battiston said the city used to use a realtor to sell their property but doesn’t anymore. Mr Battiston added that realtors need to tell people when houses are in Historic Districts. 8. ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS 9. WORK SESSION - Mr Battiston brought up the debate between windows that are wood and wood with aluminum clad. He said Petersburg doesn’t have to follow DHR exactly. Mr Lunsford said they already have a lot of TrimLine aluminum clad in the city. Mr Ward added that the local government is supposed to fine tune DHR’s regulations to our situation; there’s always a local variation. Mr Murphy said the aluminum clad windows last longer and you can’t tell the difference. Mr Pradia agreed at 3 or more stories. Ms Wynn agrees with anything easier in the long term. Mr Lunsford said nobody wants to have to keep replacing and repainting windows. 10. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Mr Ward to adjourn the meeting seconded by Mr Pradia, the motion passed unanimously and the meeting was adjourned. 4