Architectural Review Board

Architectural Review Board City of Petersburg, Virginia Minutes of the Regular Meeting August 9, 2023 6:00 p.m. Multipurpose Room, Petersburg Public Library 201 W. Washington Street, Petersburg VA 23803 Members Present: Chair, Larry Murphy Vice-Chair, Joe Battiston Bill Hartsock Louis Malon Celeste Wynn Members Absent: Dino Lunsford 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, August 10, 2023 at 6:00 p.m. in the Multipurpose Room of the Petersburg Public Library, 201 W. Washington Street, Petersburg, Virginia 23803. 2. THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE With there being no flag present, the pledge was dispensed of. 3. REVIEW OF MINUTES No minutes were presented. Mr. Malon motioned to dispense of the review of the minutes with a second from Mr. Murphy. The motion passed unanimously. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Ms. Wynn motioned to approve the agenda as presented, with a second by Mr. Hartsock. 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. With there being no comments, Chair Battiston closed the Public Information Period. 1 6. REQUEST(S) FOR CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS 6a. 236 S. Jefferson Street Applicants present, Bobby and Sherry Goodman. Staff recommended denial. The applicants explained that the attached structure to their duplex ended up in poor condition. Applicant states that they have spent money to prevent spread of condition to their side of the duplex. Neighboring duplex has a lot of outdoor trash and debris in the backyard such as vehicles and trash. Requesting a fence at the rear of the property to screen the debris from view. The vinyl fence material has already been purchased, the applicant determined it was the best material for the conditions for longevity. Joe Battiston: Stated that vinyl fences are not permitted in a historic district. Further, the vinyl fence is very visible from the street. Larry Murphy: Mentioned the need to maintain the integrity of the district and that they cannot permit vinyl fences that can be seen from the public right-of-way. Louis Malon: Addressed question about how someone would visually know the difference between wood and vinyl due to reflecting light and mildew. Applicant: Has tried to work with Petersburg and the adjacent owner. ARB: Suggested working with Home Depot to see if they can do an exchange for a fence of the proper material and that the applicant should work with staff to meet the details of the fence. Noted that the renovations look good on the duplex. All: mentioned concerns with accessing the City of Petersburg staff via phone. Chair Battiston opened the floor for anyone to speak for or against the application. With there being no comments, the public comment period was closed. Bill Hartsock motioned to deny the application based on the Design Guidelines Chapter 8 Section D. The motion was seconded by Mr. Malon and passed unanimously. 6b. 320 St Andrews Street Applicants present, Ronnie and Hildalina Santana. Staff recommended denial. Applicant: Open to meeting the board’s recommendations. Bought this property as an investment property and didn’t know it was historic. Identified a leak in the roof and was notified that they needed to replace the entire roof. Has put a hold on the replacement on the roof. 2 ARB: Mr. Battiston said that the ARB has given people up to a year to resolve the issue with the roof. The criteria for a new metal roof was explained, that it should have a seam height of one inch or less, be flat panels rather than corrugated, and should have a low profile ridge cap. Mr. Murphy said it was unfortunate that the applicant did not know ahead of time. Mentioned that lots of the streets note on the street sign if it is a historic district. Noted that there is a home on Marshall toward W Jefferson has an example of a metal roof next to the pink house. The roof must be within the specific color palette. Make sure all the flashing and collars have been done. Staff noted that she can approve the paint and roof color administratively. Staff apologized for a miscommunication about installing a tarp over the asphalt shingles, and said the tarp could be removed. Mr. Battiston opened the floor for anyone to speak for or against the application. Sherry Goodman came forward, and wished the applicants luck. With there being no further public comments, Chair Murphy closed the comment period. Mr. Malon motioned to deny the application as submitted based on the Design Guidelines Chapter 4 Section F, with the allotment of one year to correct the violation and install an appropriate metal roof. The motion was seconded by Ms. Wynn and passed unanimously. 6c. 1151-1153 West High Street Applicants present, David Budych and Miroslaw Wapniarz. Staff recommended denial. The applicants have been renovating West High Street houses for the last 20 years. Determined that replacing the roof with asphalt shingles was the best approach at the time due to the economy and house condition. Was not aware this was an issue since there are many shingled roofs on the street. Due the condition of the house, some outbuildings and additions were removed as well. Mr. Budych said a tourist group took pictures of the house after the work was done. Mr. Wapniarz pointed out that in the past hardiplabk wasn’t allowed as siding, but now it was, and that if they had not changed this roof, the whole building would have been lost. They did try to patch it, but the tin was too deteriorated. The applicants pointed out work on 908 West High Street being inappropriate. The work was completed with vinyl window, siding, and asphalt shingles. This work was completed over a year ago. Staff explained that the previous owner was issued violations but the property was sold, so was unable to address the changes. 3 Applicant: Requests to keep it due to their investment in the area and lack of other developers following the rules. They stated that in the past they have removed vinyl windows to install wood. ARB: Noted that the chimneys had been removed from the structure when the roof was replaced. Noted that the applicant has been before the board before, so they know the rules. Staff had also discussed this property specifically with Mr. Budych and said to come before the ARB with any potential replacements. Mr. Battiston explained that the roof is required that it stay the same. The only flexibility is that if the roof is slate, then it can be synthetic slate and if it is tin, it can be replaced with other metal. Cannot make exceptions, since it jeopardizes the historic standing of the area. ARB: Noted that the decision could be appealed to City Council, if desired. Also, concerns with the fact that the chimneys have been removed all the way through the structure, which alters the character of the structure. Mr. Wapniarz said they could probably install floating chimneys. The ARB reiterated the great work the applicants have been doing in the city. There was no public comment. Motion made by Mr. Malon to deny the application as presented based on the Design Guidelines Chapter 4 Section F, with the allotment of one year to correct the violation in roof material and installation of floating chimneys. Ms. Wynn seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. House is currently for sale. Concerns about allowing the applicant to postpone for a year, since the property may sell within that time. Staff would inform the applicants of the process for appealing the decision. 6d. 27 S. Jones Street Applicant representative present, Mr. Horatio. Staff recommended approval. The applicant said that since new aluminum siding couldn’t be found and they could not use vinyl, they were asking for hardiplank. The ARB discussed the windows and whether the current owner is responsible return them to their original state or not. Noted that the windows are not the same size and not the same material. The applicant maintained that the windows were like that when they purchased the property. Mr. Battiston had concerns about the porch and entry door, which is no longer consistent with the historic character of the structure. Mr. Malon said they could not approve siding until the issue of the porch and windows were resolved. The ARB requested that they be able to take a site to evaluate the property. 4  Staff noted that the applicant would need a building permit for the front porch as well as a COA since it has been removed, which will be included in the review next month. Staff will coordinate with the ARB to schedule a site visit. There was no public comment. Ms. Wynn motioned to defer the application until a site visit could be conducted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Malon and passes unanimously. 6e. 103 S. Jones and 105 S. Jones Street Applicant present, Earl Blackman. Staff recommended denial. Mr. Battiston noted that this new construction proposal was more fitting than the previous one. Mr. Hartsock said it was a reasonably acceptable option based on the new construction requirements for these lots. The ARB explained the process for requiring the applicant to secure a bond for demolition and new construction, and that staff would email this information. The use of wood or wood with aluminum cladding windows, hardiplank siding, and an asphalt shingle or metal roof were discussed for materials. There was no public comment. Mr. Murphy motioned to approve the application as submitted based on precedent, with the condition that the applicant secure a bond for the work. Mr. Malon seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. 7. OLD BUSINESS 8. NEW BUSINESS 9. WORK SESSION The new Planning Director, Naomi Siodmok was introduced. Mr. Battiston brought up a frequent concern about owners not knowing that their properties are historic, and said realtors should be required to disclose that like an HOA, but that bill was removed from the General Assembly and didn’t move forward. Mr. Hartsock said the buyers have a due diligence period, but they don’t know what to look for. Mr. Murphy suggested a historic housing fair or session; Mr. Malon said that HPF had put one on a few years ago, but it just reaches the same usual folks and not the new investors who need to learn these things. Ms. Siodmok brought up a potential text amendment about keeping duplexes as duplexes, even though they may not meet current Zoning standards. The ARB was in 5  favor of this, as it would allow historic houses to maintain the use they were built for. Ms. Siodmok said there may need to be a certificate of non-conforming use established, and there would need to be a way to determine if a house was built as a duplex or if it was illegally changed to one. Mr. Battiston suggested not confining this to historic districts, as there were other historic duplexes outside of the districts. 10. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Ms. Wynn to adjourn the meeting, with a second from Mr. Murphy. The motion was passed unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned. 6