Local Resources Advisory Board

11/13/2024 - Minutes I. Call to Order Members Present: Matt Shoen, Chair; Sue O’Brien; Doug Johnson; Brian Steinmetz City Staff Present: Ravi Venkataraman Guests Present: Michael Dugan, Tim Lesperance Call to Order by: Matt Shoen Meeting Start Time: 7:00 pm Minutes Recorded by: Ravi Venkataraman II. Changes to the Agenda None. III. Public Comment None. IV. Approve Previous Meeting Minutes Motion: Brian Steinmetz, to approve minutes with Doug Johnson’s edits Seconded: Sue O’Brien Voting: Unanimous. Motion carried. Minutes/Notes: Doug Johnson identified a few typos in the meeting minutes. V. Discussion and Possible Action: 69 East Allen Street - Application to Replace Roof Michael Dugan presented the overview of the project. Dugan said that the slate is failing and leaking, and the zero pitch shallow roofs are rusting. Dugan said the plan is to remove the slate because the slate is brittle and fragile. Sue O’Brien asked for a cost estimate for slate roofing. Dugan said that slate is about $400-500/square. Brian Steinmetz noted that installing slate requires a specialized professional. Doug Johnson asked about the age of the slate roof. Dugan said that the roof was thick slate, with a roughly 100 year lifespan, and that it currently has no lifespan. Dugan said that he would like to put a heavy asphalt shingle roughly the same color. Dugan said that the lower roof is to be a rubberized membrane of 40 mm. Dugan noted that the lower roof isn’t visible from the road. Johnson asked if the roof was originally slate. Dugan said that the entire roof was not slate. Dugan said that the pitch was too flat for slate on the lower roof and that the building probably did not have porches when it was built. Dugan said that the building was great except for the roof. Dugan said that some sheathing needs to be replaced because the slate has deteriorated. Dugan said that the sheathing is wooden, probably cedar shingle, underneath the slate. Steinmetz asked for a best guess cost estimate for slate roof. Dugan said about $80,000.  Johnson asked if the roof was originally slate. Dugan said that the entire roof was not slate. Dugan said that the pitch was too flat for slate on the lower roof and that the building probably did not have porches when it was built. Dugan said that the building was great except for the roof. Dugan said that some sheathing needs to be replaced because the slate has deteriorated. Dugan said that the sheathing is wooden, probably cedar shingle, underneath the slate. Steinmetz asked for a best guess cost estimate for slate roof. Dugan said about $80,000. Matt Shoen asked if the change to asphalt shingle change what’s underneath the roof. Dugan said he was not sure, and that the project has enough money to resheath the roof. O’Brien said that if the replacement roof were asphalt shingle, she would want the color to match. O’Brien identified the adjacent buildings having asphalt shingled roofs. Johnson asked about the other buildings in the vicinity of the subject property with slate roofs. Tim Lesperance identified one other property. Dugan said that the Niquette house may have some. O’Brien said that the Gorge Dufresne House has slate Steinmetz asked if there is a way to preserve the slate adding the possibility for reuse with certain parties. Lesperance said that they could ask the contractor. Dugan highlighted the labor costs with preserving the slate, that the slate tiles currently are very fragile and nailed in. Shoen asked if mixing and matching colors on the asphalt shingles were possible. Lesperance said that the roof would be monocolor, more of a gray. Motion by Steinmetz, seconded by O’Brien to recommend approval of replacing the slate roof with asphalt shingles at 69 East Allen Street per the submitted plan. Voting: Unanimous. Motion carried. VI. Discussion: Update on the Certified Local Government (CLG) Program Application Ravi Venkataraman said that this is still a work in progress. He said that he has had productive conversations with Mayor Kristine Lott. He said that for now, the City has more time and flexibility because City won’t meet the funding deadline for CLG grants. VII. Discussion: Design Review Guidelines Venkataraman said that one item that came up during the conversations about the CLG designation was the need for design review guidelines. He said that he needs design review guidelines to advise applicants appropriately. He said that he thought a CLG grant could be used to develop guidelines, but that this could be developed in house. Venkataraman said that other communities have developed guidelines in house, like Burlington. Steinmetz suggested that the board talk to Burlington’s planner to set up design review guidelines. Johnson noted that the City would need design review guidelines that would need to meet the working class neighborhood context. Shoen agreed. The board agreed on the importance of design review guidelines. Steinmetz said that the guidelines are important for the sustainability of the board, and for when board members turn over. O’Brien said that design review guidelines provide consistency with decision making. VIII. Discussion: Strategy for addressing critical endangered resources and updating the local resources list Board members raised concerns about historic properties falling into neglect on purpose. Shoen asked if code enforcement could identify neglected properties and force improvements. Venkataraman said that he could talk to code enforcement about their inspection process. Board members discussed maintaining and updating the list of local resources. Shoen said that updating the local resources list would require a survey of Winooski, which would require a CLG grant. Shoen said that this could be something for the board to considering doing next year.  asked if code enforcement could identify neglected properties and force improvements. Venkataraman said that he could talk to code enforcement about their inspection process. Board members discussed maintaining and updating the list of local resources. Shoen said that updating the local resources list would require a survey of Winooski, which would require a CLG grant. Shoen said that this could be something for the board to considering doing next year. Steinmetz said that the survey would help identify critical endangered resources. Johnson suggested creating a watch list identifying which buildings are under threat. O’Brien said that preservation Burlington has a list similar to this. Shoen asked if this was something the historical society could do. O’Brien said that this task would be a better fit for this group and that the historical society does not have the capacity to do this work. IX. Discussion: Signage program and other possible initiative programs O’Brien brought up the sign located in front of the Champlain Mill next to the bus stop at Winooski Falls Way. O’Brien suggested replacing the information sign in front of the Champlain Mill with a collage of historic photos. Venkataraman said that he can talk to City staff about this and get back to O’Brien. O’Brien added that brown national historic district signs and green signs from the state could be nice additions for interpretation. Venkataraman said that he can look into that. O’Brien presented on signs from the historic society for individuals to purchase. O’Brien asked if there should be an age requirement for a building for someone to be able to purchase these signs, and added that Preservation Burlington does not have a building age requirement for signs. Venkataraman suggested that the historical society consider other text options because a year of a house may not be wholly representative of the backgrounds of residents. Venkataraman noted that other cultures have the habit of naming houses, rather than putting the age of the house on the house. Shoen, Steinmetz, Venkataraman and Johnson agreed that houses should be eligible regardless of age. Johnson and Steinmetz agreed with a name option on the signs. X. City Updates Venkataraman reviewed discussion at the last Planning Commission meeting and the upcoming developers roundtable. XI. Other Business The board discussed setting a regular meeting time going forward, and concluded on the third Tuesday of the month at 5:30 pm. XII. Adjourn Motion by: O’Brien Second: Johnson Meeting End Time: 8:50 pm