Architectural Review Board

Architectural Review Board City of Petersburg, Virginia Minutes of the Regular Meeting September 12, 2023 6:00 p.m. Multipurpose Room, Petersburg Public Library 201 W. Washington Street, Petersburg VA 23803 Members Present: Chair, Joe Battiston Bill Hartsock Louis Malon Celeste Wynn Dino Lunsford Members Absent: Vice-Chair, Larry Murphy 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, 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. Chair Battiston motioned to dispense of the review of the minutes with a second from Mr. Lunsford. The motion passed unanimously. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Joe Battiston 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. Nikolas Yoss, the homeowner of 277 Grove Avenue provided samples of simulation wood for window repairs. The board recommended checking Virginia DHR for suggestion on using said material but were open to allowing its use. No other speakers came forward. Chair Battiston closed the floor for any additional speakers. 1 6. REQUEST(S) FOR CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS 6a. 115-117 Pine Street Applicants present, Derwin Kingston Jr. Staff recommended denial based on Design Guidelines Chapter 5 Section F. The applicant was seeking approval to use vinyl siding to replace the damaged wood siding on his property. Staff recommended denial of the vinyl siding but did suggest hardy plank in place of wood to mitigate cost. Applicant would be willing to use hardy plank instead of vinyl Joe Battiston: asked applicant to try and recycle any usable wood from the side and rear of the property to use on facade All: Board had questions and concerns regarding dimensions of hardy plank and did request the applicant to keep the same measurements as the original wood. Applicant was happy to comply. Applicant: asked board for input on color preference. Board informed the applicant that color of paint is admin approvable. 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. Ms. Wynn motioned to deny the application for vinyl siding based on Design Guidelines Chapter 5 Section F, and approval for hardiplabk on the sides and rear of the house. The motion was seconded by Mr. Malon and passed unanimously. 6b. 122 W Old Street Applicants present, Beverly Coleman from the Historic Petersburg Foundation. Staff recommended approval based on Design Guidelines Chapter 8 Section J. Mr. Malon recused himself from discussion as a board member of HPF. Applicant was seeking approval to build a community park in an empty lot on the corner of West Old Street. The site has already had all required archaeological work done and staff recommends approval. The park would contain native “low maintenance plants” to mitigate any ground keeping requirements. Mr. Hartsock had concerns regarding benches in the park out of worries for loitering. Applicant would be willing to remove them from the plan if that would allow 2 compliance. Staff countered that the ARB could not deny an application based on hypothetical loitering. Mr. Battiston opened the floor for anyone to speak for or against the application. With there being no public comments, Chair Battiston closed the comment period. Mr. Hartsock motioned to approve the application, leaving the bench decision to the applicant, based on the Design Guidelines Chapter 8 Section J. Ms. Wynn seconded the motion and it passed unanimously, with Mr. Malon abstaining. 6c. 21 W Washington Street Applicant present, John Brockwell. The applicant was seeking approval to replace the current metal roof with TPO. Staff recommended denial based on Design Guidelines Chapter 4 Section F. Applicant stated that the roof is only visible from a small angle from the sidewalk and that the change of material will not be significant to the surrounding area. Applicant did cite financial concerns with replacing roof with metal instead of the cheaper TPO and that the non-visible parts of the roof have already been replaced. Chair Battiston said if the roof was visible from public right of way, the material had to be retained. Mr. Battiston suggested using a roof sealant material known as “Correcto” to patch any leaks and would not recommend TPO. Mr. Brockwell stated that he had used a coating in the past but his roofer recommended replacement. Mr. Brockwell points out the inconsistency of city properties not keeping original roofing materials. He shared photos of his damaged roof and some other TPO roofs in the area. Board informed the applicant that the city is not required to go through the ARB process. ARB noted that following historic guidelines might qualify the property for historic tax credits. Chair Battiston suggested that if the eastern half was not visible from public right of way it wouldn’t be subject to ARB review, so he could use TPO on that side. ARB notified Mr. Brockwell that the decision of the ARB may be appealed by city council. Chair Battiston opened the floor for anyone to speak for or against the application. Mr. Marvin Kaldiph came forward. He stated that TPO has a much shorter lifespan than that of a metal roof, and that doing a half and half roof with different materials would cause leaks eventually. With there being no further public comments, Chair Battiston closed the public comment period. 3 Mr. Lunsford motioned to deny the application as presented based on the Design Guidelines Chapter 4 Section F, with a second from Mr. Malon. The motion passed unanimously. 6d. 1151-1153 W High Street Applicant representative present, Ogemdi Maka. Staff recommended approval based on Design Guidelines Chapter 7 Section R. The applicant was seeking approval to build an addition onto the rear of a property he was interested in purchasing. Staff requests that the rear addition uses the same hipped roof as the rest of the house. Chair Battiston asks applicant if he plans to continue to use the structure as a duplex which Mr. Maka did confirm. Board did go on to inform Mr. Maka that the property was not incompliance and the current owners must replace the inappropriate roof with a metal roof by August 2024, which Mr. Maka was not aware of. ARB asked questions about the secondary structure on the rear of the property. Mr. Maka does plan to address the building as well but not at this immediate moment. There was no public comment. Mr. Malon motioned to defer the application based on a lack of information, with a second from Ms. Wynn. The motion passed unanimously. 6e. 722 S Sycamore Street Applicant present, Horrace Collins and contractor, Marvin Khuldiph. Staff recommends denial based on Design Guidelines Chapter 4 Applicant had made unauthorized, non-conforming changes to the structure including removing original shingle roof, red metal ridge cap, and decorative dentals along roof line. In addition, Mr. Collins had a modern, black wooden fence installed in the front of the property. The applicant was seeking retroactive approval for the changes saying they had already been completed. The applicant’s contractor was present to speak on the state of the home at time of purchase. He stated that repairs were necessary to ensure no future damage to the house would occur. There was extensive discussion on what had been replaced, what was unoriginal, and how to remediate the violations. Mr. Khuldiph asked if the asbestos siding could be replaced with ascend glass polymer; the board said they would consider a new material if a sample was provided. Since the slate on the sides of the dormers had been removed and replaced with hardiplank, Mr. Hartsock asked if the hardiplank could be painted to match the new 4 artificial slate roof, the applicant agreed. Mr. Collins said the windows that had been replaced were replaced with wooden windows There was no public comment. Ms. Wynn motioned to grant the applicant one year to remediate the following violations: replace inappropriate fence, reinstallation of the removed decorative mounding with composite material, paint sides of dormers to match roof. Changes already undertaken including the replacement of the slate roof with artificial slate and in-kind replacement of windows were approved. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lunsford and passed unanimously. 6f. 104 E. Fillmore Street Applicant representative Oliver Lawrence present. Staff recommended approval based on Design Guideline Chapter 4. Applicant is looking to renovate and restore property. All repairs are within Design Guidelines. Board had questions concerning if the property will be for single or multi-family use. Mr. Lawrence stated that the property will be repurposed for single family use. Mr. Battiston noted that if any windows needed replaced, it had to come back to the board and be an appropriate material. There was no public comment. Mr. Malon motioned to approve the application based on the Design Guidelines Chapter 4. Motion seconded by Ms. Wynn and passed unanimously. 6g. 224 E. Fillmore Street Applicant representative Oliver Lawrence present. Staff recommended approval based on Design Guideline Chapter 4. Applicant is looking to renovate and restore property. All repairs are within Design Guidelines. Mr. Battiston noted the front door of the house was open. The board asked the use of the property, Mr. Lawrence said single family. There was no public comment. Mr. Hartsock motioned to approve the application based on the Design Guidelines Chapter 4. Motion seconded by Ms. Lunsford and passed unanimously. 5  6h. 930 McKenzie Street Applicants present, Martin Borsov and Asen Dinev. Staff recommends approval based on Design Guidelines Chapter 4 Section B. Applicant is requesting approval to reinstall a front porch railing and install a window in the front elevation of the house. Mr. Dinev asked about options for replacing the front door. The door was probably not original, so it could be replaced with the same style door, or a 4 or 6 panel door. It could be wood or fiberglass, but not steel. Mr. Lunsford said steel doors don’t last very long. Mr. Dinev was late in turning in window information, Mr. Battiston said new windows could be wood or wood with aluminum cladding. Board willing to approve Richmond style railing for front porch. Applicant was willing to comply. Board added they would allow for staff to complete an admin approval for the installation of appropriate wood windows into front façade. Mr. Dinev also asked about the fence; it could be removed and replaced in-kind if he wanted. There was no public comment. Mr. Hartsock motioned to approve the application based on the Design Guidelines Chapter 4 Section B, with Richmond style porch railings, a six panel door of wood or fiberglass, and for staff to review and approve an appropriate window and new fence. The motion was seconded by Ms. Wynn and passed unanimously. 7. OLD BUSINESS 8. NEW BUSINESS 9. WORK SESSION 10. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Ms. Wynn to adjourn the meeting, with a second from Mr. Malon. The motion was passed unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned. 6