Architectural Review Board

Architectural Review Board City of Petersburg, Virginia Minutes of the Regular Meeting December 11, 2013 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers, 3rd Floor, City Hall 135 N. Union Street, Petersburg VA 23803 Members Present: Chair, Joe Battiston Vice-Chair, Isaac Ward Mitchell Pradia Celeste Wynn Members Absent: Gibson Worsham Theresa Booty Phillip Arnold Staff: Secretary to the ARB, Kathleen Morgan 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Joe Battiston called to order a regular meeting of the City of Petersburg Architectural Review Board on Wednesday December 11, 2013 at 7:03 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of City Hall, 135 N. Union Street, Petersburg, Virginia 23803. 2. THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. REVIEW OF MINUTES The minutes of the November 13, 2013 regular meeting were approved with a motion from Ms. Wynn and a second from Mr. Pradia. The motion passed unanimously. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved as submitted with a motion from Mr. Ward and a second from Ms. Wynn. The motion passed unanimously. 5. PUBLIC INFORMATION PERIOD Chair Battiston 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. Chair Battiston closed the public comment period. 6. REQUEST(S) FOR CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS a. 307-313 N. Sycamore Street: The applicant, Bobby Lynch, was present. Chair Battiston asked the applicant if the brick screen were to be a different pattern than the rest of the building. Mr. Lynch stated that it would be the same as the rest of the building. Mr. Pradia asked if the staircase was for egress and/or entry. Mr. Lynch stated the addition will house a stair tower and an elevator that will access the second and third floor with an exit in the back. Mr. Ward made a motion to approve the application, followed with a second by Mr. Pradia. The motion passed unanimously. b. 216 N. Sycamore Street: The applicant, Victoria Revilla, was present. The applicant stated that she did not think she would have to come back to the ARB for a change in the rear of the building, but she was advised otherwise. Chair Battiston stated the only reason why is because it is visible from a public right of way. Chair Battiston explained that the problem was multi-fold as they are currently. He continued to explain that if a window is to be bricked in, the brick should be recessed so that it is still evident that a window was originally there; the other problem is the brick is mismatched. Col. Revilla stated the brick came from the side of the building and that the back is to be painted, stating it was approved in January 2012. Mr. Ward states that the rule is that already painted brick can be painted, but unpainted brick cannot be painted. Chair Battiston stated that this could have been avoided if the applicant came back to the ARB before making the changes. Chair Battiston asked if the windows were vinyl, and Col. Revilla stated they are not but a wood composite. Mr. Ward stated there are a number of issues being the replacement window itself, the way the window is bricked in, the brick that is used does not match the current brick. Mr. Ward also stated that the board does not typically approve painting previously unpainted surfaces. Col. Revilla stated that the change in the windows was minor; Chair Battiston followed stating that the changes are considered major by the Department of the Interior and the whole back of the building has been re-done. Mr. Pradia stated that he recalls previous discussion concerning this project mainly pertained to the front of the building and the addition, barely discussing the rear. Mr. Pradia does not recall approving the infill windows. Col. Revilla states the ARB did not approve the windows as the currently stand. Chair Battiston states that the exterior is the responsibility of the ARB which enforces guidelines put for by the Department of the Interior and National Parks Service. Chair Battiston states that the windows two properties down from 216 were most likely bricked in before the historic district came about. He stated that he does not want to set a precedent by allowing this to be retained. Mr. Ward shared that the Department of Professional Occupation Regulation which a contractor is licensed by, has regulations that the contractor is responsible for acquiring the correct permits not the property owner. Mr. Ward stated if the contractor had done what he was supposed to do, Col. Revilla would not be in this situation. Col. Revilla stated she purchased the windows and the contractor followed her direction. Chair Battiston asked if the first floor was visible from the public right of way to which Ms. Morgan responded a little of the top was visible. But, the first floor is not as prominent as the second and third floors. Chair Battiston states that the openings on the first  floor do not seem to be original openings, which provides for a little more lee- way. Mr. Ward states that due to the lack of historic material left on the first floor and that it is less visible than the second and third floors, that the ARB’s decision should be focused on the second and third floors. Col. Revilla also noted that there is a drop in grade which limits the visibility of the first floor as well. Chair Battiston proposed the idea of painting just the first floor of the rear, under the granite sills. Col. Revilla states that it is feasible. Col. Revilla asks if she can paint the entire rear of the existing building, and Mr. Ward answers that it would be a deviation from the guidelines and thus against the rules. Mr. Ward moves to deny the proposed changes on the top two floors, to stick with the originally approved drawings on the top two floors, and to approve painting over the brick and masonry on the ground floor level below the granite sills. The paint color will match the addition. Ms. Wynn followed with a second. The motion passed unanimously. c. 132-136 N. Sycamore Street, 123 N. Union Street: The applicant, Isaac Ward, was present. Mr. Ward recused himself from voting on his application. Mr. Ward stated that there is no proposed change on the front elevation from what was previously approved. Mr. Ward states the motive for switching the windows to the south elevation (the parking lot side) came from the development taking place on the lot to the north. Mr. Ward stated he will have to come back for the details of the loading dock such as the rail. Chair Battiston asked if the plans had been approved by DHR yet, and Mr. Ward responded no but he does not foresee any issues. Mr. Pradia asked if the air condition units would be on the roof. Mr. Ward resonded they would be on the roof and not visible. Ms. Wynn moved to approve the application as submitted, followed with a second from Mr. Pradia. The motion passed unanimously. 7. OLD BUSINESS Mr. Pradia asked about a property on High Street which the ARB approved a white picket fence but the owner installed a chicken wire fence. Chair Battiston states that it is about 18 inches tall. Mr. Pradia has brought this to Ms. Peter’s attention, and Ms. Morgan states she will look into the issue. 8. NEW BUSINESS Ms. Morgan stated she would like to make the board aware of two administrative approvals, one being 412 N. Market Street in which the owner is replacing a few broken panes and touching up paint on the windows, white paint to match the existing paint color. The other administrative approval was for 301 S. Jefferson Street. The property owner, Melvyn Davies, is repainting the siding, shutters, and windows to match the existing paint color. Ms. Morgan stated Col. Revilla’s property was a code enforcement property where a complaint was filed and Ms. Morgan met the owner on site, as sited in the staff report. Ms. Morgan stated that a complaint was also filed for 324 Grove Avenue which she is handling administratively; it is a paint color issue. Mr. Pradia asked if the property owner had approval for those paint colors. Ms. Morgan stated that in 2001 a COA was issued to approve a rose color for the siding and a brighter pink color for the  trim. She stated that the trim seems to be the same color, but the siding is still pink, just a brighter pink. 9. WORK SESSION 10. ADJOURNMENT With there being no further business, the meeting was adjourned by a motion from Mr. Pradia and a second by Ms. Wynn. The motion passed unanimously, and the meeting adjourned 8:13 p.m.