Architectural Review Board

Architectural Review Board City of Petersburg, Virginia Minutes of the Regular Meeting November 13, 2019 6:00 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall 135 N. Union Street, Petersburg VA 23803 Members Present: Chair, Joe Battiston Vice-Chair, Dino Lunsford Lisa Jordan Larry Murphy Celeste Wynn Mitchell Pradia Members Absent: Terry Ammons 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 13, 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 Minutes from September 11, 2019 were presented. Mrs Jordan motioned to approve the minutes as presented, with a second from Mr Murphy. The motion passed unanimously. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Ms Wynn motioned to approve the agenda as presented, with a second by Mr Lunsford. The 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 a. 33 Liberty Street 1 Applicant present, Brett Pringle. Staff recommended approval. Mr Pringle stated that the roof could be repaired with chemicals, Mr Battiston said paint would probably be good. Mr Battiston asked about the windows. Mr Pringle said they were dry rotted, he had them looked at and it was determined they were too far gone for repair. Mr Battiston asked about the built-in gutters, Mr Pringle said they could be repaired. Mr Pringle asked about the front door, he said it was dry rotted but someone on Market Street could replicate it. This was found to be appropriate. Staff asked for confirmation about the windows. Mr Pringle asked if they sould remain 2 over 2 and 1 over 1 on the right side. Mr Battiston said he could use thermopane glass. There was no public comment. Ms Wynn motioned to approve the application as presented, with a second from Mr Pradia. The motion passed unanimously. b. 908 W. High Street Applicant present, Velencia Jones. Staff recommended approval. Ms Jones said the gutters and soffits rotted through, next door they sealed the buiolt in gutters, but this is worse. She noted that the porch roof was leaning and only had one joist across. Ms Jones said she would like to eliminate the existing built in gutters and install new gutters. Mr Lunsford said the new gutters should be half round, and noted that a metal wrapped fascia board is too modern; instead she should use a good grade wood and paint it. Mr Battiston noted that half round gutters need brackets that are spaced more closely together to hold it up. Mr Battiston asked about the roof, Ms Jones said one corner was gone but it could be repaired and patched, using fiber paint for the pin holes in the roof, including a lip to make sure the water runs off. Mr Murphy asked if she would be using wood decking under the corner hole, Ms Jones said yes. Mr Lunsford asked if the porch roof was leaking, because it appears too flat for the asphalt shingles on it, which require 4/12 pitch. Mr Lunsford suggested the applicant use metal on the porch roof because it is such a small area and it will continue to have problems if the shingles are left. Mr Pradia asked about the porch posts, Ms Jones said they weren’t good but could be repaired. Mr Battiston asked about the porch rail, this could also be repaired. Staff asked about the windows, Ms Jones said they were dry rotted. Mr Battiston asked if she wanted to come back for approval of windows, Ms Jones said yes, and she would keep what they can, the sides were worse than the front windows. Mr Battiston stated she could not change window opening sizes. There was no public comment. 2 Mr Lunsford motioned to approve the removal of the built-in gutters, soffit framing out to the level deemed fit, and installation of half round gutters and round downspouts; but no use of metal on fascia boards and the applicant would return for window approval. The motion was seconded by Ms Wynn and passed unanimously. c. 200 N. Sycamore Street Applicant present, Richard Cuthbert. Staff recommended approval. Mr Cuthbert said he thought the awnings would look nice. Mr Murphy confirmed they would be green. There was no public comment. Ms Jordan motioned to approve the application with a second from Mr Murphy. The motion passed unanimously. d. 215 N. South Street Applicant present, Joseph Michael. Staff recommended approval. Mr Michael said life was better with the fence, but was sorry he installed it without approval. Mr Battiston noted that height is a zoning issue, and aesthetics are an ARB issue. Mr Michael said his neighbor has a chain link fence. Mr Battiston asked the height of Mr Michael’s fence, it was 8 feet. MR Battiston asked if the neighbor’s property was cleared, could he lower the height. Mr Michael said his neighbor was 6 feet tall. Mr Battiston thought the fence to be an improvement. No public comment Ms Jordan motioned to approve the application based on comparable height of neighboring fencing, with a note for staff to inspect possible violations on the adjoining property. The motion was seconded by Mr Pradia and passed unanimously, with Mr Lunsford abstaining. e. 1221 W. High Street Applicant present, Charles Townes. Staff recommended approval. Mr Townes said he was contacted by the City Fire Marshall and did a structural evaluation and it’s a mess, the goal is to take down what is unsafe and evaluate it. There’s a crack in the smoke stack, and Staff suggested the use of a gate to minimize the view. Mr Ammons asked if the removed portions would be rebuilt, they would not be. Mr Ammons noted that the building was allowed to deteriorate to get into this situation. 3 Mr Townes said the gate was needed, and stated that this was a life safety issue. Mr Townes withdrew his application because he thought it was just about the gate, and left the meeting. Mr Ammons questioned where the ARB should be involved where there are choices, what comes down, or what’s repaired in place. Mr Battiston suggested getting more detail from Mr Hines the Building Official. Mr Ammons wanted a plan, Mr Battiston agreed and wanted to find out what areas have to be removed from Mr Hines or Jim Reed, the Fire Marshall, because Mr Townes was vague, not that the ARB would stop it, just to understand. Mr Ammons wanted to know the impact on street fronting walls. Mr Murphy noted they were not going to rebuild what is taken down. Mr Ammons suggested leaving the walls 2 ft above grade to show a record. Mr Battiston reiterated meeting with Code and the Fire Marshall. Mr Ammons said they should know what it will look like since the gate application was withdrawn. h. 416 Second Street Applicant present, Earnest Harrison. Mr Harrison presented a memo of clear glass versus tinted glass, 63% of sun gets into the building through clear glass. Mr Harrison presented a sample of the tinted glass and said he thought it would enhance the beauty of the building. Mr Ammons said it would change the look of the building, and said a coating should be used instead, because part of the beauty of the building is its see-though big windows. Mr Murphy questioned the guidelines in regards to the aesthetics on glass, Staff said colored or tinted glass isn’t directly addressed. Mr Battiston asked if the applicant had looked into Low-E glass. Mr Harrison said he was keeping in mind the integrity of the building. Mr Battiston asked again about the Low-E glass. Mr Harrison said it needed two panes of glass, so his proposal was closer to original than Low-E products. Mr Ammons said another option would be storm windows, but that might not work in this case. A citizen asked if the concern was visibility, Mr Harrison said no, the concern is that it’s in the sun all day long. Mr Battiston said the ARB was more concerned with aesthetics. Mr Ammons said they make hard coat single pane glass; an in-kind replacement would be clear glass. Mr Harrison said he would need shielding on the inside, Mr Ammons said yes, but the Low-E would help with heat. There was no public comment. Mr Ammons motioned to deny the use of bronze tinted glass, but recommend hard coat Low-E glass. The motion was seconded my Ms Wynn and passed unanimously. i. 426 Grove Avenue Applicant representative present, Tucker Fitzhugh. Staff recommended approval. Mr Ammons noted this was the John Bare House. Mr Battiston said the addition would be minimally visible. Mr Ammons was fine with the addition, it was compliant but differentiated. 4  No public comment. Mrs Jordan motioned to approve the application as submitted, with a second from Mr Murphy. The motion passed unanimously. 7. OLD BUSINESS 8. NEW BUSINESS a. 116 Liberty Street- Historic Building Plaque There was no discussion or public comment. Ms Wynn motioned to approve the application with a second from Mr Murphy. The motion passed unanimously. The board noted that the plaque should not be installed on a column. 9. WORK SESSION a. A Call to Action Meeting- Staff announced the upcoming meeting. Mr Ammons voiced concerns about demolition, Mr Murphy was concerned about the cost. Mr Ammons speculated about being a little more lenient towards high concern areas, however the ARB should be consistent. b. Brett Pringle – 33 Liberty Street Mr Pringle submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, but did not make the deadline for this meeting. He asked about using aluminum clad windows, taking down a porch that would not be visible from public right of way, and having a replacement door made to match existing. Mr Ammons said they would need to take a look at the application and the house, Mr Murphy agreed. Mr Battiston said the proposal would be heard at next month’s meeting. Mr Pringle said the roof was in bad shape, Mr Ammons said it must be replaced in-kind, Mr Battiston suggested a sealant paint. Mrs Jordan motioned to approve removal of the rear porch structure, because it was not visible from public right of way and therefore not subject to ARB purview. The motion was seconded by Ms Wynn and passed unanimously. c. Kenneth Martin, Architect Mr Martin asked if changes were quantified over a certain percentage to make a hardship exception call. Mr Battiston said the ARB is not supposed to take finances into account in making decisions. 5 10. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Mr Murphy to adjourn the meeting, with a second from Mrs Jordan. The motion was passed unanimously and the meeting was adjourned. 6