Architectural Review Board

Architectural Review Board City of Petersburg, Virginia Minutes of the Regular Meeting January 11, 2023 6:00 p.m. Multipurpose Room, Petersburg Public Library 201 W. Washington Street, Petersburg VA 23803 Members Present: Chair, Larry Murphy Vice-Chair, Joe Battiston Dino Lunsford Terry Ammons Bill Hartsock Members Absent: Louis Malon Celeste Wynn Staff: Secretary to the ARB, Kate Sangregorio 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Larry Murphy called to order a regular meeting of the City of Petersburg Architectural Review Board on Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 6:00 p.m. in the Multipurpose Room of the Petersburg Public Library, 201 W. Washington Street, Petersburg, Virginia 23803. 2. THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. REVIEW OF MINUTES Minutes from the December 14, 2022, regular meeting were presented. Mr. Ammons noted that there was an error in the motion for item 6d. Mr. Ammons motioned to approve the minutes with that amendment, with a second from Mr. Hartsock. The motion passed unanimously. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Lunsford motioned to approve the agenda as presented, with a second by Mr. Hartsock. The motion passed unanimously. 5. PUBLIC INFORMATION PERIOD Chair Murphy opened the Public Information Period to anyone who wished to speak on any subject not on the agenda. Gwen Cooper came forward Ms. Cooper brought up the issue of the large piece of graffiti on the back of 11 N. Sycamore, which can be seen from E. Washington Street. She said that the adjoining, 1  shorter building at 9 N. Sycamore had an offer on it, but it also had a rubber roof which had been torn, so Ms. Cooper was concerned about anyone standing on that roof to clean the graffiti. She wanted to do a white or black wash square over the graffiti. Mr. Lunsford asked if she had talked to any contractors. Ms. Cooper said she was mostly worried about the roof on 9 N. Sycamore. She intended to have a security light installed on 9N.Sycamore and the police were reviewing security camera footage from the bank next door. Mr. Battiston asked if the building was ensured, Ms. Cooper said yes but she was still more concerned with damaging the roof on 9 N. Sycamore. Mr. Battiston said it was important to remove the graffiti quickly. Mr. Murphy was concerned about adding even more paint to a historic building. Mr. Ammons said that normally painting masonry wouldn’t be allowed, but suggested painting a square over the graffiti and then removing all of it together. Mr. Ammons added that anyone standing on the roof of 9 N. Sycamore to work on 11 N. Sycamore shouldn’t damage it, there would only be 3 to 4 people who would be professionals and careful. Ms. Cooper said she would use a professional painter. Mr. Ammons said the ARB couldn’t approve painting over the graffiti as a long term solution, and that paint removal should be done with chemicals and not a type of blasting. With there being no further comments, Chair Murphy closed the Public Information Period. 6. REQUEST(S) FOR CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS 6a. 311 S. Jefferson Street Applicant present, Tim Brinkley. Staff recommended approval. Mr. Brinkley said that there were 44 rooms where windows were an issue, cosmetically they have kept them painted but they cannot open which is an egress hazard. They would be replacing only the sashes on most of the windows, except six in the front that don’t have regular sizing. For those six, the bottom panels would not be removed, the trim would be removed and saved, the window would be replaced and the old trim and new window installed. Mr. Battiston asked if the muttons would be the same size, Mr. Brinkley said yes. Mr. Battiston asked if they had considered aluminum clad windows, Mr. Brinkley was not aware that was an option. Mr. Ammons noted that wood trim with aluminum sashes would create a different look. Mr. Ammons asked if the new windows would be true divided lites, Mr. Brinkley said the mullions were fixed and not clip-ins. Mr. Murphy opened the floor to public comment. Travis Brush came forward. He asked Mr. Brinkley the cost of the windows. Mr. Brinkley only had the total cost, not the price of each window. Raymond Rosario came forward. He was in support of the application because old windows can’t open and are cold and drafty. 2 There were no further public comments. Mr. Ammons noted that this was a special case due to the building’s use as a residence where window egress from the residents’ rooms is necessary. Mr. Ammons motioned to approve the application as submitted based on the Design Guidelines Chapter 4 Section C. The motion was seconded by Mr. Battiston and passed unanimously. 6b. 447 Harrison Street Applicant and representative present, Richard Fernandez and Raymond Rosario. Staff recommended denial. Mr. Rosario explained that they did not know the property was historic. He said all the windows were completely damaged and will break if touched. There were 23 windows and replacing all of them with wood would be disproportionate to the value of the house, and the same design of the current windows could be replicated in vinyl. The house was also damaged by termites. Mr. Battiston explained that the ARB doesn’t allow vinyl windows, and they could only recommend the use of wood or wood with aluminum cladding. Mr. Ammons said that the board can’t consider cost when making decisions, but they do understand the price difference. Mr. Lunsford asked how many quotes they had gotten, Mr. Rosario said two, and that they could take a year to complete the work, Mr. Lunsford thought there might be better options. Mr. Murphy said the board would not allow vinyl, only wood or wood with aluminum cladding. Mr. Rosario said they hadn’t checked on the aluminum clad. Mr. Ammons said they should still be six over one double hung. Mr. Rosario asked about the existing vinyl windows on the house, Mr. Ammons said they could remain vinyl since they were grandfathered. Mr. Rosario noted that many houses in the area had vinyl windows, Mr. Murphy explained that they were either done before the historic district was created or without approval. The ARB made some suggestions for companies the applicant could contact. Mr. Battiston noted that the rough opening size could not be changed, and suggested looking into sash packs if the window trim was still good, Mr. Rosario said it was not. Mr. Rosario explained that the rear of the house was falling and they needed to do immediate repairs, which was approved. Staff said the rear was visible from D’Arcy Street but hardiplank siding would probably be appropriate. Mr. Rosario said there were no porch railings and that they would like to add them. Mr. Battiston said the railings should not be a deck rail, but Richmond Rail would be appropriate. The door and side lites also needed replaced because of their condition and safety concerns. The board said more information would be needed before that could be approved at a future meeting. 3 There was no public comment. Mr. Battiston motioned to approve replacement of windows with in-kind wood or wood with aluminum clad windows only, which match the size and configuration of the existing windows; installation of hardiplank on the rear elevation, and installation of Richmond rail on the front porch; based on the Design Guidelines Chapter 4 Section C. Mr. Hartsock seconded the application and it passed unanimously. 6c. 404 Hinton Street Applicant present, Travis Brush. Staff recommended deferral. Mr. Brush said he needed to install the addition soon because the rear of the house was exposed, and would change the siding and windows however the ARB wanted. It would be a sort of Florida room, and he intended to build a privacy fence in the rear. Mr. Ammons thought it was hard to tell from the model what it would like; elevations and a floor plan should be submitted, which would also be needed to get a building permit. Mr. Ammons asked if there were any comparable sun rooms in the area, staff was unsure. Mr. Brush wanted the addition to match the house, but Mr. Lunsford noted that the requested differentiation between the house and addition could be subtle. Mr. Battiston suggested a 6 or 12 inch inset on the side elevation so the addition wouldn’t be flush on that wall, he could still match the windows if he wanted, but could also use hardiplank siding instead of wood, or have a slight different profile or size in siding. Mr. Ammons said the concept was fine but the board couldn’t approve an idea without more information, but the applicant could secure the rear in the meantime. Mr. Ammons suggested getting a draft and working with staff so at the next review it could be approved. No public comment. Mr. Ammons motioned to defer the application based on a lack of information with a second from Mr. Battiston. The motion passed unanimously. 6d. 307 Webster Street Applicant absent. Mr. Ammons motioned to move the application to the end of the agenda with a second from Mr. Hartsock. The motion passed unanimously. 4 7. OLD BUSINESS 8. NEW BUSINESS Applications for Discussion: 8b. 18 Walnut Lane Applicant absent. Staff had no recommendation as this was an application for discussion, but found the smaller one story proposal to be more complimentary to the district. The ARB agreed. 8c. 103 and 105 S. Jones Street Applicant present, Michelle Bebbs. Ms. Bebbs said the owner had originally wanted to renovate the houses, but contractors found they were too damaged and had termites. She thought the proposed new construction hipped roof was similar to 103 S. Jones, and proposed the clearstory to provide light into the living and kitchen area, with hardiplank siding, brick foundation, a rear screened porch, and a front porch. The person who may live there when work is complete is disabled and would need a handicapped ramp. Mr. Hartsock was opposed to the clearstory look. Ms. Bebbs explained that the floorplan had the living area in the middle of the house which needed light. Mr. Ammons noted that the square massing was odd for the area; and suggested adding light by increasing the roof pitch and using dormers instead of the clearstory, which looked almost commercial. Mr. Battison noted that this was a very visible location, and the small shotgun house was very unique. Staff explained the potential processes for allowing a simultaneous demolition and new constriction, or a demolition by-right. Mr. Battiston suggested the applicant look for references in buildings nearby, but should not seek to replicate them. Mr. Battiston thought the ARB might look at them to see how deteriorated they are and if it would be feasible to restore them. Mr. Ammons agreed. Ms. Bebbs said the rears of both buildings were practically on the ground and collecting moisture. She said if they were renovated, it would require raising them and rebuilding the foundations. Mr. Ammons brought up the houses on Grove Ave. which were connected in order to save one from deterioration. Ms. Bebbs said she would share this information with the owner. 9. WORK SESSION 5  Unfinished business: 6d. 307 Webster Street Applicant still absent. Mr. Battiston motioned to defer the application to the next meeting, with a second from Mr. Hartsock. The motion passed unanimously. 10. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Mr. Murphy to adjourn the meeting, with a second from Mr Lunsford. The motion was passed unanimously and the meeting was adjourned. 6