Architectural Review Board

Architectural Review Board City of Petersburg, Virginia Regular Meeting October 9, 2013 City Council Chambers, City Hall 135 N. Union Street, 3rd Floor, Petersburg, VA 23803 1. CALL TO ORDER Vice-Chairman Ward called to order a regular meeting of the City of Petersburg Architectural Review Board on Wednesday, May 8, 2013 at 7:03 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, in City Hall, 135 N. Union Street, Petersburg, Virginia 23803. 2. THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. REVIEW OF MINUTES No minutes were present to review. Vice-Chairman moved to approval of agenda. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Motion by Mr. Worsham and seconded by Mr. Pradie to approve the agenda. The motion was approved. 5. PUBLIC INFORMATION PERIOD Vice-Chairman Ward opened the Public Information Period to anyone who wished to speak on any subject not on the agenda. No comments during the Public Information Period. Vice- Chairman Ward closed the public comment period. 6. REQUEST(S) FOR CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS a. 22 Guarantee Street: Representative Rick Haynie, request to remove and refinish windows abating lead and/or replace with new windows. Mr. Haynie explains that lead paint is present throughout the building, especially the windows. The windows need replacing due to deterioration. There are four (4) windows: one over one, two over two, three over one, and six over six. Mr. Haynie wishes to use Weather Shield windows for the one over one style of window, the others will have mullions on the outside and inside. He has presented a sample, but it is not true to size. Mr. Haynie plans to match front windows. He is getting rid of the original due to lead and asbestos. He sites that any “unique” window will be replaced with that style of window. Vice-Chairman Ward stated that the board didn’t have the authority to allow repairable windows to be replaced even if lead existed. The lead could be abated and may not require replacement. The windows are already removed from the building, and Mr. Haynie does not know where the originals are located, possibly in the dump. Vice-Chairman Ward states the mullion width needs to compare to that of the original windows. Mr. Worsham also states the muntins and meeting rail need to have similar dimensions and thickness to that of the original windows. Mr. Worsham states that Jeld Wen makes a window that would meet the appropriate standards (3/16 1  ” meeting rail), Kolbe has a 2 and 1/8” meeting rail which would be pretty thick; Pella has a 1 7/16” meeting rail. Lincoln is another window company, but not much information was available on their website. The application is deferred until further information on the replacement windows can be provided. b. 27 & 29 Bank Street: At this time, a representative was not available. Vice- Chairman Ward moved on to the next time. c. 228 (222) Halifax Street: Representative Tennille Wade, request to install a historic marker. The marker the church wishes to install is present throughout the city. Department of Historic Resources has already approved the marker’s location. Michelle Peters states that the locality must sign off on the approval of the marker if it is in the public right-of-way. Mr. Worsham states that he is aware of other localities that have approved historic markers. Ms. Wade states the proposed location for the marker is in the lawn of the church, out of the public right-of-way but visible. Mr. Worsham moved to approve, Mr. Pradia seconded. The motion was approved unanimously. Ms. Peters states that the church can proceed and work with DHR and Ms. Wade in the future. d. 27 & 29 Bank Street: At this time, the Vice-Chairman continued discussion on this application. Vice-Chairman Ward stated there were no dimensions of the flag poles, location or examples of the flags. It was unclear if the board has purview over flags due to the fact that they are temporary and there is no mention of them in the guidelines. Ms. Peters stated that flags may be considered signage depending on the usage of the building and the content of the flag. Mr. Worsham pointed out that the dimensions of the flag poles were provided. It was unclear whether a flag was a temporary or permanent alteration. Mr. Pradia mentioned the flags along Sycamore Street and questioned if we had any previous comments on those flags. Vice- Chairman Ward stated the city did not come to the board for those flags. Ms. Peters would look into if the board has purview over flags. Discussion moved to the paint color request to paint previously painted brick. Mr. Worsham made a motion to approve the coffee stain paint color, Mr. Pradia followed with a second. The motion was unanimously approved. Ms. Peters will verify if the flags fall under the purview of the board; there was no motion made on the flag request. e. 205 N. Davis Street: Applicant Isaac Ward, request to enclose existing porch and build an addition on rear. Mr. Ward is proposing vinyl sliding glass window system; the columns will be vinyl as well. The roof will be standing seam and match the existing. The railings will be similar to what exists, in style, and the material will be vinyl. Siding will be wood to match the existing house. Mr. Pradia moves to approve the application, Mr. Worsham seconded the motion. The motion was passed unanimously. 2 7. OLD BUSINESS None 8. NEW BUSINESS Ms. Peters announced that a new Preservation Planner, Kathleen Morgan, will be starting October 21, 2013. She is coming from Historic Richmond Foundation. There has been discussion about her conducting community outreach on how to make proper repairs, letting property owners know they are in a historic district and the rules that go along with that. The goal is to have her being proactive in approaching properties that are in violation of the rules and to give them a schedule to abate violations before the next step is taken. A fee schedule also needs to be submitted to council as a harsher punishment for violators. The chisel for the plaque numbers have been found, but the plaques themselves have not been found yet. There are two that the board approved and the historic building plaques remain outstanding for those properties. All outstanding Certificates of Appropriateness will be issued. Future certificates will be delivered in a timelier manner. 9. ADJOURNMENT With there being no further business, the meeting was adjourned by a motion from Mr. Worsham and a second from Mr. Pradia. The motion was approved, and the meeting adjourned at 7:55 p.m. 3