Architectural Review Board

Architectural Review Board City of Petersburg, Virginia Minutes of the Regular Meeting June 10, 2020, 6:00 p.m. Held Virtually Via GoToMeeting Members Present: Chair, Joe Battiston Mitchell Pradia Terry Ammons Larry Murphy Lisa Jordan Members Absent: Celeste Wynn Vice-Chair, 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, June 10, 2020, at 6:00 p.m. virtually on GoToMeeting. 2. THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE With there being no flag present, the pledge was not performed. 3. REVIEW OF MINUTES The ARB dispensed of the review of minutes until the ARB could meet in person. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Murphy motioned to approve the updated agenda as presented, with a second by Mrs. Jordan. The motion passed unanimously, approving the agenda and items 6a, 6b, and 6c on the consent agenda. 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 6d. 930 W. High Street Applicant present, Melvin Davies. Staff recommended approval. Mr. Davies explained that a parking area was always there, but it was not finished so it became muddy in the rain. Mr. Murphy said that although the work should have received approval first, it looked nice. Mr. Battiston and Mr. Pradia reminded the applicant that he should receive approval for such work before it is undertaken. Mr. Ammons motioned to move the application as completed, with a second from Mr. Murphy. The motion passed unanimously. 6e. 225 High Street Applicant present, Bill Nicholson. Staff recommended approval. Mr. Nicholson explained that he was trying to recreate the Thomas Day complex as it was confirmed by photos, descendants, and the Works Project Administration Virginia Historical Inventory report from 1937. He said the project doesn’t qualify for tax credits, and gave some history on the changes made to the house over time. Mr. Ammons was comfortable with the approach, but site plans and elevations would be needed. He also noted that the building on this lot before had its own outbuildings. Mr. Nicholson said that the original to this small outbuilding no longer existed, and a copper roof will be installed as it was described in the WPA report. Mr. Ammons said these were basically new construction projects, and that they would need details such as size and scale. Staff noted that the applicant would need this information for a building permit as well. The ARB decided that the site plan could be submitted via email to staff, and staff could approve if it was determined appropriate. No public comment. Mr. Ammons motioned to approve the application pending the review of a site plan and project details. The motion was seconded by Ms. Jordan and passed unanimously. 6f. 517 Plum Street Applicant present, Carol Pond Layden. Staff recommended approval. Mr. Battiston asked how visible the work would be, staff approximated. No public comment. Mr. Murphy motioned to approve the porch as submitted, with a second from Ms. Jordan. Mr. Ammons commented that the motion should include the approval of paint. Mr. Murphy amended his motion to approve the porch and paint. Mr. Ammons seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Mr. Battiston noted that pressure treated wood should be allowed to sit before it is painted. 6g. 265 Grove Avenue Applicant present Caron Nazario. Staff recommended approval. Mr. Nazario said that he would get construction plans, elevations, column details, ect, based on any comments received by the ARB. This would be a preliminary review. The ARB was fine with the general concept. There was no public comment. A motion was made by Mr. Murphy to approve the application in concept, with details to follow before construction. The motion was seconded by Mr. Ammons and passed unanimously. Mr. Nazario confirmed that his approval allowed him to get the details for the proposal, and then those would be reviewed to ensure that they matched. That was correct. 6h. 243-245 Hinton Street Applicants present, Dale and Linda Pittman. Staff recommended denial. Mrs. Pittman explained that they were committed to historic preservation and don’t like being on the contested end of things. The three houses on Hinton St. were acquired three months ago, and they all need roof work. Their architect would not even go inside to examine the roof because it was so damaged. The slate on the roof was not installed correctly, there has been two fires up there, rotting elements, and has basically suffering from demolition by neglect. It was not safe to have this roof on the building. They received quotes for installing architectural shingles, fake slate, original, and metal and they were all expensive because of the gables, dormers, and chimneys. Mrs. Pittman added that she has seen architectural shingles used in the area and didn’t think they looked offensive. They explored the use of composite slate, but two roofers were uncomfortable with the thought of using it, with a 20 to 50 year lifespan neither roofer was willing to touch them. Functionality is more important than looks, and if they used a very expensive material on the roof, it would take resources away from other exterior improvements, so she thought the money should be spent elsewhere. Mr. Pittman said they they’re not flippers and want the house to last; having fake slate that could melt is a bad idea. He said they’ve worked with the ARB before and have invested in Petersburg, and added that what the ARB does is a great thing. Mr. Battiston said they were aware of the good work the Pittmans have done, but they still have an issue with making sure they follow Petersburg’s guidelines, which say that in this case the only things that can be used are synthetic or real slate. If the ARB were to approve shingles here, it would set a precedent for every other house to ask for the same; the best offer here is the synthetic although real slate is expensive it would be ideal. Mr. Ammons shared an example of Camelot dimensional composite shingles, which are premium grade and would be cheaper than real slate. Mrs. Pittman said there was 8 x 13 Buckingham slate on the roof. Mr. Ammons clarified that the remaining pieces of good slate would be going on the dormers; that was correct. Mr. Ammons asked if the ARB would consider other materials that look like slate, Mr. Battiston said there needed to be resemblance. Mr. Ammons said the Camelot shingles would be close to the color of Buckingham slate. Mr. Murphy said he’s used Grand Manor shingles and they look similar; he added that he understands the cost but that’s not what the ARB is here for, but noted that the Camelot shingles did look good. Mr. Pittman said that he didn’t think the roof was strong enough to hold a slate roof. Mr. Battiston asked if the roof could be braced. Mrs. Pittman said it was unfortunate that they had to propose an inferior product for their project. Mr. Battiston opened the floor for anyone to speak for or against the application. Bill Nicholson spoke. He said he was “old Petersburg” and that from a business/ investment perspective, people are not flocking to Petersburg, he’s gotten complaints on his own projects, he’s ashamed the previous owner of these Hinton Street houses let them get to this condition. He also said we should put our heads together and work with people, there aren’t many who want to do their renovations right, redevelopment should be encouraged to save buildings rather than see them demolished. Carthan Currin spoke. He said that preservation was part of economic development, and that he had seen these properties recently and supported the Pittmans’ efforts. There was no further public comment. Mr. Murphy agreed with Mr. Nicholson’s comments on being creative. Mr. Murphy motioned to approve the application, to use a roofing material that looks like or is slate, no 3 tab asphalt shingles. There was no second and the motion failed.  Mr. Battiston said it was hard to say no since the Pittmans have done such good work, however, this would set a precedent. Mr. Battiston explained that if too much historic integrity was lost Petersburg could lose its historic districts. Mr. Ammons suggested the applicants install a portion for review because it would be a substitute product. Staff noted that the decision of the ARB could be appealed to City Council. Mr. Battiston asked if a sample could be provided for in person review by the ARB, he wondered if they could replicate the visual effect of slate. Mr. Ammons agreed, and noted that structural issues weren’t really under their purview, and if the ARB is going to allow things other than real slate they need to know how it will look. Mr. Murphy suggested that the product has been installed elsewhere in the city, so the applicants shouldn’t need to start installing it for the ARB to get a look at it installed, but they should still get samples. Mrs. Pittman said she could bring samples. Mr. Battiston suggested deferral of the application. The applicants thought that was fine, and said they didn’t want to remove the slate, but the roof wouldn’t support putting it back on. Mr. Murphy motioned to defer the application, with a second from Ms. Jordan. The motion passed unanimously. 6i. 408 N. Sycamore Street Applicant present, Richard Cuthbert. Staff recommended approval. Mr. Cuthbert explained that the idea came from Bobby Lynch. Mr. Battiston liked the idea and wished it had been done sooner. Mr. Lunsford also liked it. Mr. Murphy asked how many were expected, and if the program would continue. There was no public comment. Ms. Jordan motioned to approve the application as submitted, with a second from Mr. Ammons. Mr. Ammons asked to amend the motion, so hat expansion anchors go into the mortar rather than be drilled into brick. The motion was amended and approved unanimously. 7. OLD BUSINESS 8. NEW BUSINESS 9. WORK SESSION 9a. Discussion of Robert’s Rules of Order  Staff brought up a few points to clarify the proper way to make motions during ARB meetings. 10. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Mr. Murphy to adjourn the meeting, with a second from Ms. Jordan The motion was passed unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned.