Architectural Review Board

Architectural Review Board City of Petersburg, Virginia Minutes of the Regular Meeting December 11, 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 Celeste Wynn Mitchell Pradia Terry Ammons Members Absent: 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, December 11, 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 October 9, 2019 were presented. Staff noted that they were almost complete. Mr Lunsford motioned to conditionally approve the minutes upon their completion, with a second from Ms Wynn. The motion passed unanimously. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mrs Jordan motioned to approve the agenda as presented, with a second by Ms Wynn. 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 1 a. 529 High Street Applicant not present. Mr Pradia motioned to move the application to the end of the agenda, seconded by Mr Ammons. The motion passed unanimously. b. 915 W. High Street Applicant present, David Budych. Staff recommended approval. Mr Budych noted that the addition would be 33 feet long and explained the footprint and roof, adding that the addition would match the main house but with new windows because the addition windows were not good; they would probably be the same as the ones used on 1013 W. High Street. Mr Budych added that the siding on the sides of the house was bad and requested to use hardiplank, noting that in his opinion once it’s painted it looks the same as wood. He said there would be wood windows on the main house and a wooden porch. Mr Battiston confirmed that the existing wooden siding on the front façade would stay, that was correct. Mr Lunsford asked how often hardiplank was approved in the Local Historic Districts. Mr Ammons said that if it’s all the siding on an entire wall to be replaced, you cannot see a difference in material as long as the proper grain or smooth finish is used, because there won’t be a distinction between old and new wood. Mr Budych asked if the grained hardiplank should be used on the sides to better match the worn condition on the front. Mr Ammons suggested that the Board members look in the field and be able to see the two different samples. Mr Battiston suggested that once that was done, staff could be given administrative approval once the Board reviewed the samples and condition of the building. Mr Lunsford noted the addition roof should be metal. There was no public comment. Mr Ammons motioned to approve the application as submitted with the use of a metal roof and half round gutters on the addition, and with the allowance for staff to administratively approve which hardiplank surface to use after consultation with the Board. Mr Pradia seconded the application and it passed unanimously. c. 19-21 N. Sycamore Street Applicant present, Christine Lynch. Staff recommended approval. Mrs Lynch explained that she wanted to install a steel door rather than wood for durability and security. Mr Battiston thought a metal door would probably be inappropriate on such a visible elevation, and added that wooden doors are still secure because metal doors are actually thin with insulation on the inside of them. Mrs Lynch noted that wooden doors take more maintenance, Mr Battiston pointed out that the proposal had the other door on the same elevation as wood, which would also require maintenance. Mr Ammons asked about the 9 light windows on the same elevation, they would be restored. Mr Ammons said he didn’t have a problem with a 2 metal door, however it would not be more secure than a wooden door unless the applicant were to pay more for an industrial door; he noted that the existing door is not original, and added that using darker colors helps metal doors look better. Ms Wynn noted that the door wouldn’t fade as much because it will get less sun. Mr Lunsford said the veneer runs off metal doors and they can be kicked in. Mr Pradia asked if the door frame would remain, it would. Mrs Lynch said they wanted to have an etching in the transom above the door in question. Mr Ammons explained that decorative glass is debatable because it is sometimes not authentic but it can be allowed in some instances as an art installation. Mr Battiston asked if the design could be put behind the glass, Mrs Lynch said it would be less effective that way. Mr Ammons said etching should be done on the inside face not the outside, and added that it could be removed. Mr Battiston said it can be harder to fit a steel door to a specific opening, and suggested leaving the option to use wood or a metal door to the applicant. There was no public comment. Mr Ammons motioned to approve the application with the note that the north elevation eastern end door could be high quality steel or wood, and that the transom glass panel should be administratively approved by staff. Ms Wynn seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. d. 118 W. Tabb Street Applicant not present. Ms Wynn motioned to move the application to the end of the agenda, seconded by Ms Jordan. The motion passed unanimously. a. 529 High Street Applicant still not present. Staff recommended temporary approval of the windows. The ARB confirmed that the vinyl windows would be temporary, and noted that the house was the John Grammar House, and Mr Ammons explained some of its history. Mr Lunsford commented that the windows used were low quality. No public comment. Mr Ammons motioned to deny the application as submitted, and request the owner remove the vinyl windows and reinstall the originals. The motion was seconded by Mr Lunsford and passed unanimously. d. 118 W. Tabb Street Applicant still not present. Mrs Jordan motioned to defer this item to the next ARB meeting on January 8, 2020 provided the applicant could provide further details. The motion was seconded by Ms Wynn and passed unanimously. 3 7. OLD BUSINESS a. Appeal of the decision of the ARB on 115 N. Sycamore Street Staff shared with the ARB that the appeal would be heard by City Council at their first meeting in January. A Board member pointed out that the installed windows don’t necessarily prevent something from being built in that empty lot, they would just be rendered pointless. 8. NEW BUSINESS 9. WORK SESSION 10. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Mrs Jordan to adjourn the meeting, with a second from Mr Ammons. The motion was passed unanimously and the meeting was adjourned. 4