Architectural Review Board

Architectural Review Board City of Petersburg, Virginia Minutes of the Regular Meeting March 12, 2014 6:00 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall 135 N. Union Street, Petersburg VA 23803 Members Present: Chair, Joe Battiston Mitchell Pradia Theresa Booty Celeste Wynn Gibson Worsham Members Absent: Vice-Chair, Isaac Ward 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 March 12, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. at Council Chambers, City Hall, 135 N. Union Street, Petersburg, Virginia 23803. 2. THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. REVIEW OF MINUTES The minutes of the February 19, 2014 regular meeting were approved with a motion from Ms. Wynn and a second from Mr. Worsham. The motion passed unanimously. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Battiston moved to have 22 N. Sycamore Street (c) placed on a consent agenda. The agenda was approved as amended and the consent agenda was approved with a motion from Mr. Pradia 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. CONSENT AGENDA  a. 22 N. Sycamore Street: Application was approved as submitted with a motion from Mr. Pradia and a second from Ms. Wynn. The motion passed unanimously. 7. REQUEST(S) FOR CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS a. 135 W. Old Street: The applicant, AIMCO, was present. Staff recommended approval of the application as submitted. Staff explains that the current asphalt shingle roof was approved by the ARB in 1999. The roof replacement will address all of the apartment building, but not the one story portion to the west. Mr. Worsham asked if the color was similar to what exists. The applicant stated it will match as closely as possible. Mr. Worsham moved to approve the application as submitted, followed by a second from Ms. Booty. The motion was approved unanimously. b. 216 N. Sycamore Street: The applicant, Col. Victoria Revilla, was present. Staff recommended approval of the application as submitted. Chair Battiston asked if the proposed design was for the balconies as well as the fencing around the courtyard; Col. Revilla confirmed. Ms. Booty asked how this differed from what was previously submitted; Chair Battiston answered that a design was not approved previously; the board had asked her to come back once a design was chosen. Mr. Worsham said he thinks the proposed fencing is an improvement from the original sketch. Mr. Pradia moved to approve the application as submitted, followed by a second from Ms. Wynn. The motion was approved unanimously. c. 25 W. Bank Street: The applicant, Monument Construction, was present. Staff recommended approval of the application as submitted. The applicant confirmed it was a historic rehab tax credit job. Chair Battiston expressed concerns with the corner at the east, stating the header looks like it could be an original header. The applicant stated their engineer felt it was a structural failure. The applicant stated they submitted Part 2 to Department of Historic Resources but have not met with them yet. Chair Battiston stated he had objections to closing what could be an historic opening. Mr. Worsham asked questions about the windows and their actual condition. The applicant stated that they believe they can restore the arched windows (four) on the second floor. The dimensions of the windows, including the meeting rail and muntins, were submitted with the application. Mr. Worsham made a motion to approve the application as submitted with the conditions that the windows on the second floor be restored, the vertical ornamentation on the east elevation close to the storefront be preserved, that if any further discoveries are made about the questionable opening on the east side the applicant follow DHR’s directives, and all window openings fit the current openings. The motion was followed by a second from Ms. Wynn. The motion was approved unanimously. d. 704-706 High Street: The applicant was not present. Staff recommended approval of the application as submitted. Staff clarifies that what is to be replaced  will be with like materials, and the same shape and form of what exists now, with the exception of the bottoms of the posts which the applicant would like to replace with a rot resistant, wood composite material. Mr. Worsham raised his concerns with using the phrase “in-kind.” Chair Battiston replied that the board decided to properly define the term to make it easier for staff to make administrative approvals. Mr. Worsham moved to approve the application as submitted, omitting the word in-kind but replacing the materials as they are now. Ms. Wynn followed with a second. The application was approved unanimously. e. 7 Courthouse Avenue: The applicant, Phillip Tinsley c/o City of Petersburg, was present. Staff recommended approval of the application as submitted. Staff clarified that the application will be for a roof replacement as well as work to the built in gutters; the roofing system will be a system that has been previously approved. The applicant stated that the new roof will be a standing seam, snap- lock, 1.5” height; panel width varying between 15” and 18”. The applicant stated the color will be very close to what is there. Mr. Worsham asked if they had a manufacturer name; the applicant answered the manufacturer is Englert. Chair Battiston expressed his concerns with the 1.5” seam height, stating that 1” seams are available and more appropriate. Mr. Worsham asked about the gutter repairs; the applicant stated the work would be manufactured to fit the form of the gutter. Mr. Pradia moved to approve the application, followed by a second from Mr. Worsham. The application was approved 4-1; Chair Battiston opposed. f. 322 N. Sycamore Street: The applicant was not present, but a representative, Rose Mary Alais was present. Staff recommended approval of the application as submitted. Mr. Pradia asked if the sign would be painted on the inside; staff answered that it would be stuck on the inside. Mr. Worsham moved to approve the application, followed by a second from Ms. Wynn. The application was approved unanimously. 8. OLD BUSINESS 9. NEW BUSINESS 10. WORK SESSION 11. ADJOURNMENT With there being no further business, the meeting was adjourned by a motion from Mr. Pradia and a second by Ms. Booty. The motion passed unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m.