Architectural Review Board

Architectural Review Board City of Petersburg, Virginia Minutes of the Regular Meeting September 12, 2018 6:00 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall 135 N. Union Street, Petersburg VA 23803 Members Present: Chair, Joe Battiston Dino Lunsford Larry Murphy Substitute Members: Director of Planning, Michelle Peters Members Absent: Vice-Chair, Isaac Ward Gibson Worsham Mitchell Pradia Celeste Wynn Staff: Secretary to the ARB, Kate Sangregorio 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Joe Battiston called to order a regular meeting of the City of Petersburg Architectural Review Board on Wednesday, September 12, 2018 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 August 2018 Minutes were presented. Mr Murphy motioned to dispense in the review of the minutes. The motion was seconded by Mr Lunsford and was passed unanimously. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr Lunsford made a motion to move the first two applications to the end of the agenda, as the applicant was not present. Mr Murphy seconded the motion, and it 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. With there being no comments, Chair Battiston closed the Public Information Period. 1 6. REQUEST(S) FOR CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS Regular Agenda: c. 8 W. Bank Street: Applicant not present. A motion was made by Mr Murphy to move the application to the end of the agenda, seconded by Mr Lunsford. Motion passed unanimously. d. 311 S. Jefferson Street: Applicants present, Tim and Adam Brinkley. Staff recommended approval of proposed application. Mr Murphy asked why Adam Brinkley chose this as his Eagle Scout project, the young Mr Brinkley said that his father had the project at The Petersburg Home for Ladies reserved for him. Motion made by Mrs Peters to approve the proposed application, seconded by Mr Lunsford. Motion passed unanimously. e. 209 S. Jefferson Street: Applicant present, Ross Bauschatz. Mr Bauschatz, as the head contractor for the project, stated that he had tried multiple times to get in contact with the property owner but was unsuccessful. He explained that the proposed shingles in his contract are 30 year dimensional shingles because the owner wants low maintenance. He said that in their siding discussion, he proposed that the owner to use Colonial Beaded siding because he has seen it used in Colonial Williamsburg, its historic looking and low maintenance. He also stated that color had not yet been discussed with the owner. Mr Battiston confirmed that this siding was vinyl, and said that would be difficult to approve; the siding needs to be wood. Mr Bauschatz stated that the owner was budget conscious. Mrs Peters stated that a building permit for this project had already been issued, it passed in error through the Planning Office and Code Compliance Department. It was discovered by a neighbor complaint. She said that when staff went to the site the workers were very agreeable. She would not ask for the Board to do anything different because of this, but the owner of the property is not available so she asked if staff could be given a box to work in since it was their oversight. 2 Mr Battiston stated that the ARB is obligated to stick to the Design Guidleines, and suggested one avenue for the applicant is to appeal the decision to City Council. Mrs Peters said that if the Board’s decision was for wood siding staff would work with the applicant, but she encouraged the Board members to look at the property, as it is not very visible from Jefferson Street, more from Marshall Street. Mr Bauschatz showed the Board photos of the structure in relation to the main house. Mr Lunsford asked the material of the main house roof- it is standing seam metal. Mr Battiston stated that wood siding isn’t that much more expensive than vinyl; Mr Bauschatz agreed, but countered that wood siding takes more maintenance, and the property owner is elderly and wants the garage to be as low-maintenance as possible. Mr Murphy asked the size of the garage; it’s 24’x24’. Mr Murphy said that’s not a ton of material; because this came up as a complaint if the Board is not consistent there will be a problem; they can’t vary on what they’ve had others do in the past. Mr Bauschatz agreed, but stated that the project had already gotten City approval. Mr Lunsford asked if materials had been purchased already, Mr Bauschatz said they had not, but he has a contract with the owner for a set amount. Mr Battiston asked if anyone present would speak for or against the application. Randall Haase came forward. He stated that he is in favor of standing seam metal roofs. He’s never been given any other option to use on any historic project, and is supportive of keeping the historic material fabric of the area. No further public comment. Mr Bauchatz agreed, however, he said it would not be fair to the owner. Mr Battiston stated that the National Park Service now allows snap together metal roofs, which are less expensive. Mr Bauchatz admitted he is not versed in snap metal roof installation or cost, and that he could not speak for the owner’s wallet. Mr Murphy made a motion to deny the application because it does not comply with Historic District requirements. To make it compliant, the garage would need wood siding and a standing seam metal roof. Motion seconded by Mr Lunsford and passed unanimously. Mr. Bauchatz stated that any deviation from his contract would have to sit until the owners returned. Mr Battiston reiterated that the Board had to keep things the same. Mrs Peters spoke as the Planning Department Director and said that the applicant had handled the situation very well, and invited the applicant and owner to meet 3  with administration regarding this. Mr Bauchatz said that he would check on the garage and wait until the owner returns. f. 418 N. Market Street: Applicant present, Randall Haase. Staff recommended approval of the proposed application. Mr Haase explained that it was an old building which he bought when it was falling down and going to be demolished. He secured the property and repaired it. Mr Haase showed an old picture of the building with a red roof and green windows and expressed an interest in doing that, but with white and green windows. He stated that the 5/4 fur windows were approved previously. Mr Battiston said that should be a simple renewal of an old COA, but Mrs Peters stated that COAs were only good for 12 months. Mr Haase asked if it could be added into his approval at that meeting; the board agreed. Br Battiston asked if he would be keeping the original window openings, Mr Haase said yes, the replacements would be like and kind. He explained the siding is 1’ x 8’ and not beaded. Mr Battsiton stated that would be more appropriate than the asbestos shingles there now. Mr Lunsford asked a color, Mr Haase said he would like to mimic the picture he showed. Mr Battiston suggested adding floetrol to the paint to thin it and get the same effect as the picture. Mr Haase said that the back cinderblock addition roof is tar and asphalt and he would paint it later. Mr Battiston stated that the board only cared about what was visible from the public right-of-way. Mr Haase said that the front entry way was 4 panel glass door; this was not included on the meeting’s agenda, but he expressed a desire to change the door back eventually. Mr Battiston asked if he would like to have the door reviewed at that meeting, Mr Haase agreed; he stated that the step is a piece of granite, and the door isn’t standard or very tall, and asked if there would be any problems with the door. Mr Battiston said the light is good. Mr Lunsford confirmed that the application was to include the door, windows, siding and roof. No public comment. A motion was made by Mr Murphy to approve the application with the addition of the door presented from the 2007 photo with 4 lights, wood panel on the bottom, and transom lights. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously. 4 6. OLD BUSINESS -Mr Lunsford informed the board that 227 N Jones St was up for repair, however he did not have a construction date. 7. NEW BUSINESS 8. ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS 9. WORK SESSION -Staff asked the board their thoughts on administrative approval for flagpoles; the board agreed they could be approved administratively as long as they weren’t unusual. -Staff asked the board their thoughts on having temporary banners come for approval though the board. Mr Battiston suggested leaving the issue until there was a complaint, but Mr Murphy said it was something that needed to be consistent. Mr Battiston brought up that it was a time sensitive process, Mr Murphy said 30 days (the time limit in the Zoning Ordinance) was fine, but longer than that it detracts from the district. 10. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made and seconded to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously and the meeting was adjourned. 5