Architectural Review Board

Architectural Review Board City of Petersburg, Virginia Minutes of the Regular Meeting September 14, 2022 at 6:00 p.m. Multipurpose Room, Petersburg Public Library Members Present: Chair, Larry Murphy Celeste Wynn Bill Hartsock Dino Lunsford Louis Malon Terry Ammons Members Absent: Vice-Chair, Joe Battiston Staff: Secretary to the ARB, Kate Sangregorio 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Larry Murphy called to order a regular meeting of the City of Petersburg Architectural Review Board on Wednesday, September 14, 2022, at 6:00 p.m. in the Multipurpose Room of the Petersburg Public Library. 2. THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The pledge of allegiance was dispensed of as there was no flag present. 3. REVIEW OF MINUTES Minutes from the August 2022 and January 2022 regular ARB meeting were presented. Ms. Wynn motioned to approve the minutes as presented. Mr. Malon seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Lunsford motioned to approve the agenda as presented, with a second by Mr. Malon. The motion passed unanimously. 5. PUBLIC INFORMATION PERIOD Mr. Murphy opened the Public Information Period to anyone who wished to speak on any subject not on the agenda. With there being no public comments, Mr. Murphy closed the Public Information Period. 6. REQUEST(S) FOR CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS 6a. 217 High Street Approved as part of the consent agenda. 6b. 402 N. West Street Applicant representative present, Brian Vertucci. Staff recommended partial approval. Mr. Vertucci explained that the upper windows were just tin storms and single pane, making them dangerous. Mr. Murphy said the ARB usually preferred wood or wood with aluminum cladding for windows. Mr. Vertucci pointed out that there were houses nearby with vinyl windows. He also said that the left façade window would be resized to match its original rough opening size. He noted that the back upper windows were broken and damaged. Mr. Ammons said the ARB allowed for in-kind replacement of vinyl, and explained that the windows should be true divided lite if there are muntins. Mr. Hartsock would love for the house to be restored to its original condition, Mr. Vertucci said that historic materials were expensive. Mr. Murphy noted that the ARB doesn’t take cost into account. Mr. Murphy said that the vinyl windows could be removed in the future. Mr. Ammons asked the window configuration, Mr. Murphy suggested one over one so they would match but not replicate what might have been there. Mr. Ammons said there was no reference for what the upstairs windows were. There was no public comment. Mr. Ammons motioned to approve the application with the condition that the new windows will fit the original openings and be one over one double hung, based on the Design Guidelines Chapter 4 Section C, with a second from Mr. Malon. The motion passed unanimously and the application was approved. 6c. 227 S. Jones Street Applicant present, Valerie Bell. Staff recommended partial approval. Ms. Bell explained that there was already a driveway on the lot to the left that would be used for the required new construction parking. Mr. Ammons was ok with this house looking like the new construction next door. There was no public comment. A motion was made by Mr. Malon to approve the application based on the Design Guidelines Chapter 7. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hartsock and passed unanimously. 6d. 706 High Street Applicant not present. Staff recommended approval. There was no ARB discussion. There was no public comment. Ms. Wynn motioned to approve the application as submitted based on the Design Guidelines Chapter 8 Section G. The motion was seconded by Mr. Ammons and passed unanimously. 6e. 309 Hinton Street Applicant present, Joe Yates. Staff recommended approval. Mr. Malon asked about the columns, Mr. Yates said they were inside the house and they were using the ghost makings for their locations. The shed porch roofs in the old photo were not original, so a hipped roof with standing seam metal would be used instead. Mr. Murphy asked if railings would be needed, Mr. Yates said yes because of the drop from the main floor to the basement. Mr. Hartsock said there were a lot of original materials inside the house. Mr. Murphy opened the floor for anyone to speak for or against the application. There was no public comment. Mr. Hartsock motioned to approve the application as submitted based on the Design Guidelines Chapter 4 Section B. The motion was seconded by Mr. Malon and passed unanimously. 6f. 307 Webster Street Applicant not present. Mr. Murphy motioned to move the application to the end of the agenda with a seocnf from Ms. Wynn.  6g. 142 E. Wythe Street Applicant present, Lamont Hobbs. Staff recommended deferral. Mr. Hobbs explained that the shingle section would not be coming down and brought a new set of plans. The windows would be double hung and wood with aluminum cladding. There would also be some exterior doors installed for retain space. Mr. Murphy opened the floor for anyone to speak for or against the application. There was no public comment. Mr. Malon motioned to approve the application as presented. The motion was seconded by Ms. Wynn and passed unanimously. 6f. 307 Webster Street Applicant still not present. Staff recommended denial. Mr. Ammons thought that the small octagon window was alright because it looks, but understood staff’s concern about uniformity in the bays. He also pointed out that the porch details aren’t the same in each drawing. Mr. Hartsock though the unorganized rear windows looked strange. Mr. Ammons suggested the porch have a Richmond rail to prevent a deck railing from being used. Mr. Ammons also noted that it was hard to regulate quality in plans like this. Mr. Hartsock asked if the crawl space was open. There was some further discussion about new construction regulations. Staff would include this as a work session item for next month’s meeting, with a review of the new construction chapter of the Guidelines. Mr. Murphy opened the floor for anyone to speak for or against the application. There was no public comment. Ms. Wynn motioned to defer the application. The motion was seconded by Mr. Malon and passed unanimously. 7. OLD BUSINESS 8. NEW BUSINESS 9. WORK SESSION 10. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Ms. Wynn to adjourn the meeting, with a second from Mr. Hartsock. The motion passed unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned.