Board of Historic & Architectural Review

The Smithfield Board of Historic and Architectural Review (BHAR) held its regular meeting on Tuesday, May 21st, 2024 at the Smithfield Center. The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. Members present: Trey Gwaltney – Chairman Julia Hillegass – Vice Chair Judith Lally Julie Hess Leigh Abbott-Leaman Russell Hill Justin Hornback Members absent: None Staff present: Mark Kluck – Planner Press: None Citizens: 7 Chairman Gwaltney welcomed all attendees to the meeting. Planner’s Report: Mr. Kluck, Planner, proposed implementing online training/webinars on meeting nights when there is a short agenda allowing all Board members to complete the yearly required training and potentially foster greater discussion amongst the BHAR as a whole. He stated that they would consider joining the National Alliance of Preservation Commissions (NAPC), and reminded them of the email sent previously by Tammie Clary, Community Planning and Development Director, for a training opportunity for Thursday, May 23rd at 1:00 pm on Housing and Historic Preservation. Public Comments: Chairman Gwaltney confirmed that there were no members of the public that wished to make comment. Board Member Comments: There were no Board Member comments. Single-Family Dwelling (New Construction) – 202 Riverview Avenue – Non-Contributing – Phillip and Cynthia Brouillard, applicants. Mr. Kluck reported that the applicants were seeking approval to construct a new single- family detached dwelling on the property with the following elements: • Owens Corning TruDefinition “Williamsburg Grey” architectural shingles with a “Dove Grey” metal roof on the front elevation to accent the shingled roof. Board of Historic and Architectural Review May 21st, 2024 • “Cobble Stone” Hardie adorned soffits, fascias, and corner posts with white Hardie or LP Smartside trim boards around the windows and doors. • All windows will be 6-over-1 Andersen 100 Series single-hung white windows featuring white trim and grilles. • There will be two (2) sets of columns; one at the front and one at the rear. The columns at the front of the home will feature a mix of Echo Ridge Country Ledgestone and “Cobble Stone” colored Hardie siding. The rear columns will be wrapped entirely in the Echo Ridge Ledgestone. • The front porch will feature grey composite handrails with black spindles and Echo Ridge Ledgestone stone-faced concrete steps. The rear elevated deck and steps will feature composite decking boards in a light gray color with white railing and black spindles. • The elevations of the dwelling will be adorned with a mix of horizontally lapped, vertically lapped (board and batten) “Light Mist” or “Cobble Stone” Hardie siding or stucco-finished CMU in “Light Mist” or “Cobble Stone.” Most of the home will feature horizontally lapped Hardie siding, accented by board and batten-style Hardie siding in “Light Mist” on the front second-story elevation over the front door. The stucco-finished CMU will be located on both sides of the dwelling and colored “Cobble Stone.” The rear wall finish around the basement door will either be Hardie siding or stucco in “Light Mist,” with the main level and second floor featuring “Light Mist” horizontally lapped Hardie siding. • The home will be accessed via one of four entrances. There will be three sets of entry doors: the front entry door will be a 6-lite Therma-Tru Fiberglass Craftsman door painted in “Colorado Gray,” and the rear elevation will feature two sets of white Andersen 400 Series Frenchwood Gliding Door (one at the basement level and one at the main level). Due to the narrowness of the lot, the applicant is proposing a front load, single car attached garage on the primary façade of the home that will be accessed via a “Colorado Gray” or white colored Carriage-style recessed panel steel garage door featuring a two-panel, 8-lite design and bronze or black decorative hardware. Mr. Kluck reported that Town Staff recommended approval from a zoning standpoint and deferred to the BHAR for architectural discretion; however, the applicant must submit an approved site plan and all required applications to Town Staff for a new single-family dwelling before construction could begin. Cynthia Brouillard of 10 Jamesview Circle in Smithfield reported that she was present to answer any questions regarding the application. She updated that instead of having the board and batten they had opted to have cedar shake style Hardie Board siding with the entire back of the home remaining Hardie Board horizontal planks. She provided the Board members with renderings of the planned structure and stonework. Chairman Gwaltney said that the general design of the house was nice and noted the difficulty in placing houses on such narrow lots. He stated that he thought the stonework looked nice, however questioned whether it was appropriate for the Historic District. He continued that the style was not historically accurate to ages of buildings in the district. 2 Board of Historic and Architectural Review May 21st, 2024 Mr. Hornback said that the stack-stone look was popular in new developments, adding that when presented with this design prior the Board had recommended replicating colonial style brick instead. He said that he had reviewed information for the supplier included in the proposal, and had not seen that style available, however he knew that the style was available elsewhere. Chairman Gwaltney added that the colors chosen were all perfect. He reiterated that the flagstone style did not match anything existing in the area. He reported that there were some homes in the district that had river rock or rounded stonework. Mrs. Brouillard reported that it had taken a long time to find a product that coordinated well with the color palette chosen. She acknowledged that brick would be more historically accurate, but she felt that red brick would look out of place with a light blue home. Chairman Gwaltney said that he understood, and emphasized that the color palette chosen was perfect, but the actual stone is what was standing out. He said that the Board’s purpose was not to redesign the plans but was there to offer suggestions. He suggested that a white colored block could be used in the proposed stonework’s place. Mrs. Brouillard pointed out that the front of the structure was very small. She related that she was very sensitive to the flow of a home, and it bothered her when houses had time period disconnects. She reiterated the length of time it had taken to find the proposed stonework. She added that the home was not positioned on Main Street in the Historic District. Mr. Hill directed the Board members to the slide that included all of the different proposed elements of the home, and that there was a light grey brick in between the garage doors. He stated that was a good example of the type of brick they were recommending. Chairman Gwaltney offered that they could use a very cheap brick and then paint it the color that they wanted. Mrs. Brouillard asked for confirmation that the suggestion was that they use any type of brick. Chairman Gwaltney specified that he meant the basic type of brick. He agreed with Mrs. Brouillard’s statement that using a red brick would be too much, but painting it would be acceptable. He said that Mr. Hill’s suggestion was a good one, and asked if she was agreeable to considering that option. Mrs. Brouillard said she was agreeable to it, but asked if the Board was willing to consider the stonework at all. Chairman Gwaltney said he understood her point about not being on the two main corridors in Town, adding that the Board tried to hold all areas within the Historic District to the same standards. He said that what did make a difference between cases was whether or not the property was classified as Landmark or Contributing, and at this point the property in question was classified as Non-Contributing as there was no structure on it. He explained that the classification may change with the addition of the building dependent on the architecture, even as new build, that was utilized. Mrs. Brouillard stated that it was a difficult situation when seeing some of the homes in the Historic District that had been approved. Chairman Gwaltney pointed out that not everything in the Historic District had been approved by the Board. 3 Board of Historic and Architectural Review May 21st, 2024 Mrs. Lally related that she understood the difficulty in finding historically accurate materials based on her own experiences. She agreed with Chairman Gwaltney’s statement that the colors chosen were beautiful, but the stonework made the structure fall into the category of new construction. Mr. Hill made a motion that they table the application until the applicant had time to research other options. Mrs. Brouillard asked if they could proceed with approval noting that that she would change the material, or would the Board need to review the change ahead of time. She said that they were hoping to get approval so that construction could begin. Chairman Gwaltney asked if she thought that some of the alternative design features presented to her were options she would consider. Mrs. Brouillard stated that she would, namely the option of using river stone. Chairman Gwaltney said that the Board did not want to delay the project any further. He asked the Board if they were willing to allow administrative approval if there were specific options noted in the motion. Vice Chair Hillegass said that if the choice was river stone then she would like to review prior to approval. Mr. Hill pointed out that Mrs. Brouillard did not necessarily know exactly which material they would use. Mrs. Brouillard reported that if the Board gave her specific direction as to which materials she was approved to use, she would not deviate from those choices. Mr. Hill changed his motion to approve all architectural features as presented with the applicants’ amendments (cedar shake style siding instead of board and batten and the rear wall being all “Light Mist” Hardie Siding), except for the proposed stonework. Chairman Gwaltney asked Mrs. Brouillard if the Board approved everything on the application except the stonework, which would then be reconsidered in a month, would construction be able to be started. Mrs. Brouillard reported that the stonework in question would be part of the foundation, which was one of the first parts of the project to be completed making it one of the first things to be ordered. She said that if the Board would approve white, gray, or a mix of the colors presented painted onto brick, then that is what she would look for. She added that once she had identified what she had chosen she could email the information to Mr. Kluck. Mr. Kluck pointed out that they would still need to go through site plan review, which would give them some additional time. Chairman Gwaltney suggested that they could approve the application except for the proposed stonework, and then Mrs. Brouillard could return to the next meeting and present her substitution. Mr. Hill repeated his motion, and added that she could return to the next meeting to present a substitute brick or river rock to replace the Echo Ridge Ledgestone stonework. Vice Chair Hillegass seconded Mr. Hill’s motion. 4 Board of Historic and Architectural Review May 21st, 2024 Chairman Gwaltney called for a collective vote, all members present were in favor, with none opposed. The motion passed. Sign – 517 Main Street – Contributing - Main Street Baptist Church c/o Miles Blount II, applicant. Mr. Kluck reported that the applicant was seeking approval to replace the existing approximately seven-foot (7’) wide by eight-foot (8’) tall single-sided, changeable message, bricked and shingled monument sign with a new double-side changeable message monument sign measuring six-foot (6’) wide by seven foot (7’) tall, rotated 90 degrees so that it would be perpendicular to the road. He continued that the proposed sign's upper structure and base would be mainly constructed with a synthetic foam product (polystyrene) with an armor coating to protect the compressed foam material. Mr. Kluck explained that the sign's base would mimic brick with a carved foam design and paint. He said that the applicant also submitted an acceptable landscape plan in accordance with Smithfield Zoning Ordinance (SZO)Article 10.E.6 and had future plans for the sign that included installing external illumination in compliance with SZO Article 10.E.11. Mr. Kluck reported that Town Staff deferred to the BHAR for the architectural discretion and recommended that any favorable decision by BHAR was contingent on the applicant receiving approval for a Special Sign Exception (SSE) from the Planning Commission. Jesse Spencer of 710 Chickahominy Loop in Carrollton was representing Main Street Baptist Church and present to discuss the proposed sign. Mr. Hornback asked why they had chosen the proposed material of synthetic foam. Mr. Spencer explained that when the original sign had been placed, materials did not cost as much as they did currently. He said that the representative from James River Signs, Dave Gupta, had shown them the quality of the material, and they felt that it did not look any different. Mr. Hornback asked what the Ultraviolet (UV) rating for the material was. Mr. Gupta reported that the paint used would last 15 to 20 years. He continued that masonry was typically 50 to 70% of the total cost, adding that the quote received for a brick-based sign was 40% more expensive then what they were presenting. He said that these types of faux-stone structures had become the latest trend. Mr. Spencer stated that the reason that they were changing the sign was to make it easier to see by making in perpendicular to the road. Mr. Gupta pointed out that the existing sign had a letterboard on it with the lettering at about 1.5 inches high, which was meant more to be read by someone standing in front of it. He said that the objectives given to him by the church was the ability for people to read the sign when driving down the road, which led them to proposed 4 inch letter tracks. Mr. Hornback recognized that the proposed material was newer, but consideration had been given to the style chosen. He made a motion to approve the application as presented. Chairman Gwaltney confirmed that the Board understood that the entirety of the frame of the sign would be made out of polystyrene, not just the brick veneer. Mr. Gupta testified that from 10-20 feet away a person would not be able to tell that it was not brick and aluminum. 5 Board of Historic and Architectural Review May 21st, 2024 Chairman Gwaltney observed that the proposed sign would also have a concrete footer covered by a flower bed. Mr. Gupta explained that the sign would be mounted on poles that were embedded in the concrete footer in the ground. Chairman Gwaltney asked if there was a hollow channel involved. Mr. Gupta detailed that there was a PVC sleeve that the carbon steel posts of the sign slid into. Mrs. Lally asked if the sign would be easily repaired if damaged. She expanded that she had felt the material, and it was dense; however, would it be damaged by rocks, etc. Mr. Gupta reported that the material could be touched up, but it could withstand a hit from a hammer. Chairman Gwaltney asked how the wording of “Main Street Baptist Church” would be applied. Mr. Gupta explained that the permanent lettering and the cross would be composed of acrylic. Vice Chair Hillegass asked what the wind rating of the product was. Mr. Gupta said that the wind rating was dependent on the mount of the sign. He reported that he did not have it with him, but he could get it for their review if necessary. He added that the carbon steel posts extended through the sign ending about 6 inches from the top, with the actual posts being 3 inches wide as well. Vice Chair Hillegass asked if the channels for the lettering were covered by any material. Mr. Gupta said that there would be a plexiglass cover on the lettering. Vice Chair Hillegass seconded the motion made by Mr. Hornback. Chairman Gwaltney called for a collective vote, all members present were in favor, with none opposed. The motion passed. He expressed the Board’s keen interest in the outcome of the sign change as they were updating their guidelines to include new materials, such as the foam material used in the proposed sign. New Deck - 335-337 Main Street – Landmark - Bill and Dorothy Somerset, applicants. Mr. Kluck reported that the applicants were seeking approval to replace the existing wooden deck with a larger pressure-treated wooden deck that will be approximately 33 feet long by 12 feet wide. He said that the deck would feature wooden pickets to match the existing pickets and would be stained clear to retain a natural wood look and further protect it. He stated that the proposed deck would be similar in size to one that previously existed prior to the present smaller deck, adding that it was unclear when the current deck replaced the original. Paula Cole, business owner of Encore Pilates at 337 Main Street, was present to discuss the application. Mr. Hornback pointed out that the deck was at the rear of the property. Chairman Gwaltney added that there was a street adjacent. Mr. Hornback noted that the proposed pickets were a similar style to those at the front of the building. 6 Board of Historic and Architectural Review May 21st, 2024 Chairman Gwaltney said that the fact that everything on the structure was painted, but it would stand out that the proposed deck was not painted. Mrs. Cole reported that the deck was not originally painted since she had her business in the building beginning in 2006. She added that the original deck had gotten to the point that it was rotten and unsafe, and she had asked the owner to address it. She said she had thought that the owner was replacing the deck, but they had put in a smaller deck instead. Mrs. Cole explained that the owner had told her that the deck replacement had been approved, but they had since told her that he had just gotten a friend to help him with the installation. Chairman Gwaltney asked if the owner was going to install the proposed larger deck. Mrs. Cole reported that she would pay for half and the owner would pay for the other half as she wanted the deck installed the way it had been originally. Chairman Gwaltney pointed out that in the street view picture of the original deck, lattice work was included. He asked if the proposed new deck would also have lattice work. Mrs. Cole said that it should be the same, but she would need to speak with the owner to confirm. Chairman Gwaltney asked for confirmation what the plan was for the woodwork after the project was constructed. Mrs. Cole reported that it would be stained clear stain as it had been originally. Chairman Gwaltney presumed that the original deck had not had any treatment as it just looked weathered in the photo, which is something that the Board tried to avoid. Mrs. Cole said that she was told by the owner that a clear coat would be put on the wood. Chairman Gwaltney questioned if the owner would be willing to put some paint or white stain on the wood. Mrs. Lally related her experience using white stain on fencing and was very satisfied with the outcome. Chairman Gwaltney said that it would be nice to keep the motif of the railing of the back deck similar to what was currently at the front of the house. Mrs. Cole agreed that matching the colors would look better, and she had been trying to put back what had been there originally. Chairman Gwaltney countered that what was there should not have been there as it was not original to the house. He explained that when adding a structure like this to a house it should try to blend into what was there. He stated his recommendation to the Board would be to ask that the deck be painted to match the color combination seen at the front of the house, including white spindles and green railings. Mrs. Abbott-Leaman agreed that painting would make it look more cohesive. Vice Chair Hillegass made a motion to conditionally approve provided the applicant paints or stains the deck to coordinate with the colors of the building (white pickets and deck boards and green handrails and footrails), and the applicant should add white lattice to enclose the underneath portion of the deck. Mrs. Hess seconded the motion. Chairman Gwaltney called for a collective vote, all members present were in favor, with none opposed. The motion passed. 7