Architectural Review Board

Architectural Review Board City of Petersburg, Virginia Minutes of the Regular Meeting February 12, 2020 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 Members Absent: Terry Ammons 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, February 12, 2020 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 December 2019 were presented. Mr Lunsford motioned to approve the minutes as presented, with a second from Ms Jordan. The motion passed unanimously. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mrs Jordan motioned to approve the agenda as presented, with a second by Mr Pradia. 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. 406 Approved in Consent Agenda b. 118 W. Tabb Street Applicant present, Lunsford Johnson. Staff recommended general approval until further details were provided. Mr Johnson said that the house was built circa 1840 as a residence, but is now commercial; there was a rear addition. Mr Johnson explained the interior layout to describe the rear renovations and installation of the rear porch. Origional materials from the house will be used as much as possible. Mr Lunsford also detailed further plans he has for the house in the future in order to replicate a house on Grove Avenue which he believes to look like 118 W. Tabb would have been originally. Mr Battiston said if evidence could be found to show that the windows are not original they could probably be changed. Mr Johnson said he would look for photos. Staff noted the façade of the building may not be original, but it has probably acquired historic integrity in its own right. No public comment. Ms Wynn motioned to approve the rear renovations as presented, with staff to administratively approve further details and rear windows. The motion was seconded by Mr Pradia and passed unanimously. c. 328 E. Fillmore Street Applicant present, John Hodge. Staff recommended denial for vinyl windows, but approval for the rest of the application. Mr Hodge said the windows could actually be repaired, but they would need new glass. Mr Battiston said new glass is fine, as long as it fits into the opening and nothing original is resized. Mr Hodge said insulation and energy consumption were important. Mr Battiston explained that appropriate original windows on the rear or sides could be moved to the front. Mr Pradia asked about the porch rails, Mr Hodge said they had been changed and he would redo what is there now. Mr Battiston requested photos of the rails. No public comment. Mr Pradia motioned to approve the application with the addition of the porch rails, with a photo shown to staff before installation, and the exception of replacing windows. The motion was seconded by Mr Lunsford. The motion passed unanimously. 2 d. 1101 McKenzie Street Applicants present, Denise Saunders and Joseph Eli. Staff recommended partial approval. Mr Battiston asked if the new proposed windows fit the original openings, Ms Saunders said yes and that they were wooden. The ARB and the applicants discussed which windows and if there was once a window to the left of the door. Mr Lunsford requested interior photos to show evidence that the window was present, and if it was present, to determine it’s rough opening size. Mr Lunsford noted the window should be portrait oriented. No public comment. Mr Lunsford motioned to approve the application as discussed; six over six wooden windows installed in the four openings as they were originally sized, and that the applicants must confirm the existence of the window to the left of the door. The motion was seconded by Ms Wynn and passed unanimously. There was some discussion about the roof. e. 1006-1008 W. High Street Applicant present, David Ludlow. Staff recommended denial. Mr Ludlow explained that he did not know the property was in a historic district because the street signs do not say so. Mr Battiston sympathized because there’s no requirement that a new owner be notified if their property is in a historic district. Mr Lunsford explained that if enough buildings lose their historic integrity, Petersburg could lose its designation as a Certified Local Government. Mr Ludlow said there were 25 windows and he did not change the opening sizes. He said his insurance dropped him because it was a bad neighborhood. There was no public comment. Mr Lunsford motioned to deny the use of vinyl windows, granting the applicant 18 months to install six over six wooden windows. Ms Wynn seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. f. 234 S. Jefferson Street Applicant not present. Ms Wynn motioned to move this item to the end of the agenda, seconded by Mr Lunsford. The motion passed unanimously. g. 507 Grove Avenue Applicant representative present, Michael Wilson. Staff recommended approval. 3 The building used to extend out to the curb; the current façade is not original. Mr Wilson explained that windows on the side were covered and they wanted to get the façade off but were not entirely sure of the final result. The ARB was amicable to the proposal. No public comment Ms Wynn motioned to approve the application as submitted. The motion was seconded by Mrs Jordan and passed unanimously. h. 12 N. Sycamore Street Applicants present, Andrew and Debbie Campbell. Staff recommended partial approval. Mr Campbell explained that they would cut off the existing bolts, repair and paint the existing tiles which are ceramic coated steel, and want to paint it grey with an epoxy based paint. Mr Pradia asked what was behind that, Mr Campbell said supports and sprayed concrete on lath with no evidence of windows. Mr Battiston noted that it was a JC Penny’s. Mr Campbell said they were following the historical footprint of the glass on the front. Mr Lunsford asked if it would be wood going under the windows, Mr Campbell said yes, they were going to repair the terrazzo but decided not to, but there would be some terrazzo on the ground. Mr Pradia asked about decorative columns, Mr Campbell said he wasn’t sure but wanted sconces on the columns. Mr Battiston said they should be positioned high, Mr Pradia said they might need to check with the Right-of-Way manager because sconces would overhang the sidewalk. No public comment. Mr Pradia motioned to approve the application for its windows and doors, with the applicants to return with details on columns and lights at a later date. The motion was seconded by Mrs Jordan and passed unanimously. i. 406 N. Market Street- Application for Discussion Applicant representative present, Rich Haynie, and applicants present, Joan Gardiner and Kevin Mullis. Staff had no recommendation because this was an application for discussion. Mr Haynie explained that the only entrance to the home on the second floor is through the shop downstairs and the owners need a second means of egress. They chose that location because it aligns with the front of the building and there is pluming along that wall; it would be a similar look to the stairs on the Jury’s Inn on N. Sycamore. Ms Wynn asked if there could be a deck and stairs off the bedroom. Ms Gardiner said maybe. Mr Pradia asked if there was a third floor, yes there was a living space. Mr Haynie thought the current exterior side wall was an interior wall when a building was once present next to this one. Mr Battiston asked if there could be an interior staircase with an exit door on the first floor. Mr Haynie said there would not be room unless a spiral staircase was used, which would not be ideal. 4  Mr Battiston explained that additions should fit in with their main building but differentiated so it doesn’t appear to be original. Mr Pradia asked if the deck would be wood or metal, metal was preferred because wood takes more maintenance. Mr Haynie pointed out there’s a metal landing and stairs behind Longstreet’s. Mr Battiston suggested rearranging interior rooms. The applicants were not agreeable to that, and suggested turning the stairs and landing into an addition. Staff suggested consultation with DHR for guidance. f. 234 S. Jefferson Street Applicant still not present. Staff recommended approval. Staff suggested deferring the porch based on lack of information and approving the rest of the application. Ms Wynn motioned to defer the porch work based on lack of information, and approve the remainder of the application. The motion was seconded by Mr Lunsford and passed unanimously. 7. OLD BUSINESS a. 115 N. Sycamore Street Applicant not present. Mr Lunsford commented that the applicant is familiar with the ARB process. Mr Battiston suggested postponing the application once more, then denying it if the applicant is not present. Ms Wynn motioned to defer the application, seconded by Mr Pradia. The motion passed unanimously. 8. NEW BUSINESS a. Workshops from the Department of Historic Resources Staff informed the ARB that there would be upcoming training workshops for ARBs and CLGs. b. FOLAR- Appomattox River Trail Staff informed the ARB that the next set of plans for the Appomattox River Trail were complete, and as per the previous meeting where plans were reviewed; a special meeting would be held for this issue on February 20, 2020. 9. WORK SESSION 5 10. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Mr Battiston to adjourn the meeting, with a second from Mr Lunsford. The motion was passed unanimously and the meeting was adjourned. 6