Historic Landmarks Commission Packets

HISTORIC LANDMARKS COMMISSION December 8, 2016 THE REGULAR MEETING WILL BE HELD AT 9:00 A.M. IN CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY HALL BUILDING NOTE: IF YOU CANNOT ATTEND THIS MEETING, PLEASE CALL THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING BY 12:00 NOON, WEDNESDAY, December 7, 2016 514-4060 RANDY HICKS CHAIRMAN PREPARED BY THE CITY OF SUFFOLK DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF PLANNING  AGENDA Historic Landmarks Commission Meeting Thursday, December 8, 2016 9:00 a.m. I. Call to Order: Chairman II. Roll Call III. Approval of the Minutes IV. New Business 1. REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS HC2016-00025, submitted by Howard and Arlene Benton, applicants and property owners, for the replacement of a standing seam metal roof and the demolition of two separate chimneys on property located at 117 Wellons Street, Zoning Map 34G17, Block (A), Parcel 237. The affected area is further identified as being located in the Suffolk Voting Borough, zoned RM, Residential Medium Density and HC (Historic Conservation Overlay District). 2. REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, HC-2016-00026, submitted by Thomas Dawson of Mid-Atlantic Coatings, Inc., agent, and Philip Ford, trustee, on behalf of Glebe Episcopal Church, property owner, for the replacement of the current Norfolk Tile (concrete) and cedar shake roof with a Buckingham Slate roofing system and replacement of water damaged and mismatched cornices, frieze, moldings and soffits with like-kind wood on property located at 4400 Nansemond Parkway. The property is further identified as Zoning Map 20, Parcel 5, Cypress Voting Borough, zoned RLM, Residential Low-Medium Density, and HC, Historic Conservation Overlay District. V. Staff Reports A. Enforcement Update B. Administrative Approvals VI. Adjournment  MINUTES HISTORIC LANDMARKS COMMISSION October 13, 2016 9:00 A.M. The regular meeting of the Historic Landmarks Commission was held on Thursday, October 13, 2016, 9:00 a.m., in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, 442 W. Washington Street, Suffolk, Virginia, with the following persons present: MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF: Walter Boyette Robert P. Goumas, Interim Director of Planning Randy Hicks Claire Jones, Interim Assistant Planning Director Susan Coley Karla Williams, Associate City Attorney John Faircloth Kevin Wyne, Principal Planner Oliver Hobbs Amy Thurston, Planner I Jillian Scott-Hale, Office Assistant Shepelle Watkins-White, Substitute Legal Counsel MEMBERS ABSENT: Merritt Draper Edward King Vivian Turner The meeting was called to order by Chairman Hicks. The roll was called by Ms. Jones and the Chairman was informed that a quorum was present. The minutes of the previous meeting were approved as presented. REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS HC2016-00019, submitted by Kurt W. Werth of Church Development Services, LLC, agent, on behalf of First Baptist Church-Mahan, applicant and property owner, for (1) construction of a new 12,700 square foot building, (2) demolition of an existing detached annex building, and (3) additional site improvements including the expansion of the on-site parking lot, access drive improvements and landscaping enhancements on property located at 112 Mahan Street, Zoning Map 34G11, Block (A), Parcel(s) 101*102. Also included are Zoning Map 34G11, Block (A), Parcel(s) 98, 99, 100, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108*109, 126 and 127*128. The affected area(s) are further identified as being located in the Suffolk Voting Borough, zoned RU, Residential Urban, CBD, Central Business District zoning districts and HC (Historic Conservation Overlay District). The first item of business was introduced by the Chairman, followed by a staff report by Kevin Wyne, Principal Planner. Mr. Wyne stated the subject property is located at 112 Mahan Street. Mr. Wyne stated that the site include a collection of 13 separate parcels, five (5) of which are located within the district and eight (8) which are located outside of the district. The assemblage is split into two separate zoning districts, the RU Residential Urban and CBD Central Business District. The applicant is proposing to construct a new, 12,700 square foot building that will primarily serve as a new sanctuary for the church, demolish an existing detached annex building, and complete additional site improvements including the expansion of the on-site parking lot, access drive improvements and landscaping enhancements. The project is located in the North Main Street Extension District (1998) of the City’s Historic Conservation Overlay District and is also located on a Historic Entry Corridor. 2 Mr. Wyne provided the Commission with photographs of several buildings within the vicinity of the project, illustrating the location and scale of surrounding structures. He noted that the materials used on these structures are primarily wood frame and brick. Mr. Wyne informed the Commission that the church received approval in 2014 to demolish three (3) separate structures and construct a new social hall addition at the corner of North Main Street and Mahan Street. To make room for the proposed addition, the contributing building at 403 N. Main Street and the non-contributing building at 409 N. Main Street have been demolished in accordance with the granted Certificate of Appropriateness. The third building, the sanctuary annex, remains and is planned for demolition as a part of this application. As this is not a contributing structure, staff recommends approving the new request for demolition. As previously approved, the proposed social hall was similar in height and scale to the sanctuary building currently being proposed, and would have been clad in brick veneer with large windows and brick pilasters comparable to those on the existing church building. Mr. Wyne stated that the proposed sanctuary will consist almost entirely of EIFS, which is an acronym for Exterior Insulation and Finishing System. EIFS is a synthetic material that consists of several layers, with an exterior finishing coat that can be used to mimic a number of other materials. In this case, the exterior is proposed to be finished to mimic brick. The structure is also proposed to utilize 16 over 16 vinyl clad windows, three main entrances consisting of aluminum storefronts with double leaf doors, and pilasters consisting of faux 3 brick EIFS. Mr. Wyne stated the design calls for two (2) approximately 20 square foot signs, which will consist of black acrylic channel letters and read “Mahan Street” on the top and “First Baptist Church” on the bottom. Mr. Wyne stated that new buildings within the Historic Urban Core and the Historic Entry Corridors should be designed and constructed of materials which closely resemble the materials originally used on historic buildings under the Guidelines. In the Historic Urban Core and the Entry Corridor on North Main Street, buildings are constructed of brick or wood. Other new commercial projects approved in the Historic District, including City Hall and the Police Headquarters, have been constructed using brick veneer. Because of its prominent location in the District and on an Entry Corridor, its proximity to the street, the materials used on surrounding buildings, and the requirements of the Overlay District Guidelines, staff recommends the use of brick veneer on the proposed building. Mr. Wyne stated that after evaluation, staff believes that the criteria of the Historic District Design Guidelines can be met based on the above findings-of-fact and the conditions outlined below. Therefore, based on the above findings-of-fact, staff recommended approval of HC- 2016-19 with the conditions noted below: 1. Construction of a new sanctuary building of brick veneer with EIFS details, as shown in the provided attachments. 2. Lighting on all façades fronting on public streets shall utilize decorative fixtures designed to match the proposed building. 4  3. Installation of two (2) 20 square foot signs with indirect lighting as proposed. 4. All site improvements are subject to review through the City of Suffolk’s site plan approval process. 5. All required permits shall be obtained from the City of Suffolk. The public hearing was opened. Speaking in favor was Mr. Whitney Saunders, representing the interest of First Baptist Church Mahan. Mr. Saunders stated that the application was in good order with the exception for the material which is to be used for the exterior of the church. Mr. Saunders stated that a key factor to be discussed would be EIFS and stated the applicant’s belief that it can create the appearance of the brick. Mr. Saunders stated that EIFS would be a cost effective material that would match the existing sanctuary building which is clad in brick. Also speaking in favor of the application was Deacon Sam Jones, First Baptist Church Mahan Street. Deacon Jones provided background information on the church history as well as research information on the status of the project. Deacon Jones stated that the church has researched the EIFS materials and feel like the material is the best fit for the church. Lastly, speaking in favor of the application was Mr. Kurt Werth, Church Development Services. Mr. Werth stated that their goal is to design a highly functional, beautiful, feasible, effective and affordable church building while paying attention to the cost. Mr. Werth stated the EIFS material would accomplish this goal. 5 There being no more speakers in favor of or in opposition of the application, the public hearing was closed by Chairman Hicks. The Chairman opened discussion among the Commissioners: Commissioner Coley asked Chairman Hicks, as an architect, if he had used EIFS on any of his projects before. Chairman Hicks replied that he has used EIFS extensively, but noted a significant difference between historic districts and suburban commercial development where EIFS is primarily utilized. Chairman Hicks stated that, most of the time, EIFS is used for mimicking stone and similar materials but not as often with brick. If you have a large building and cannot use brick veneer on it due to its weight, then cladding it with false brick EIFS is an option. He noted that using faux brick EIFS on a one-story building is less practical, and that the energy efficiency of brick veneer and EIFS are very similar. Chairman Hicks further stated his concern pertains to the long term viability and that EIFS is not a 100 year material from an aesthetic standpoint. The Commission is tasked with looking out for the historic district. Chairman Hicks stated that the Commission is in favor of the church’s proposed expansion, but they cannot base their decision on financial feasibility. Chairman Hicks stated that this material is not appropriate for the district, long term. Chairman Boyette questioned if the EIFS material had been used on the police administration building or the City Hall building. 6 Chairman Hicks stated that it was his understanding that the brickwork used is solid brick veneer. Ms. Jones confirmed Chairman Hicks’ statement. Chairman Coley stated that she has been on the Commission for a number of years and had never seen this material before. Chairman Hobbs questioned the expected life span of the EIFS material and asked Mr. Werth to address this concern. Mr. Kurt Werth replied that the life span warranty of the EIFS material is about fifteen (15) years. Chairman Hicks compared EIFS to vinyl siding, which is designed to achieve the appearance of wood siding but noting that it has proven ineffective in achieving the appearance of wood from close up and is not permitted within the Historic District. The demolition of a contributing structure was approved to allow the construction of a new building of a material and style matching the existing church. He stated that, as a Commission, they have to follow state regulations and historic guidelines to maintain their position as a Certified Local Government and their obligation is to preserve the integrity of the historic district as empowered to do so by the Commonwealth and the City. A motion was made by Commissioner Hobbs to approve the application with staff’s recommendations. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Faircloth and approved by a recorded vote of 5-0. 7 New Business: Enforcement Update Mr. Donald Bennett, Property Maintenance Official, reported on the following properties: 131 Clay Street- This property has been sold and should be before the Commission shortly requesting exterior rehabilitation. 219 Bank Street – property maintenance violation, dismissed for compliance New Business: Zoning Update Mr. Ricky Sample, Zoning Inspector, reported on the following properties: 181 N. Main Street – Property in litigation, case continued until November 3, 2016 216 Bank Street – Pending staff review 302 Bank Street – Notice of Violation Commissioner Faircloth inquired as to why the violation on 216 Bank Street was still pending. Mr. Sample and Ms. Donna Coleman informed the Commission that the department continues to work with the property owner and the City Attorney’s office regarding procedural issues pertaining to an appeal. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:56 a.m. 8  HISTORIC LANDMARKS COMMISSION Motion: To Approve Staff’s Recommendation 1st: Hobbs October 13, 2016 2nd: Faircloth ATTENDANCE HC-2016-00019 VOTE: 5-0 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT ABSENT YES NO Boyette, Walter, Vice-Chairman X X Coley, Susan M. X X Draper, Merritt X Faircloth, John X X Hicks, Randy, Chairman X X Hobbs, Oliver X X King, Edward L. X Turner, Vivian X  CITY OF SUFFOLK 442 W. WASHINGTON STREET, P.O. BOX 1858, SUFFOLK, VIRGINIA 23439-1858 PHONE: (757) 514-4060 FAX: (757) 514-4099 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Division of Planning To: Historic Landmarks Commission From: Kevin M. Wyne, AICP, Principal Planner Date: December 8, 2016 Subject: REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS HC-2016-25, submitted by Howard and Arlene Benton, applicants and property owners, for the replacement of a metal roof and the demolition of two separate chimneys on property located at 117 Wellons Street, Zoning Map 34G17, Block (A), Parcel 237. The affected area is further identified as being located in the Suffolk Voting Borough, zoned RM, Residential Medium Density and HC (Historic Conservation Overlay District). STAFF REPORT Overview of the Subject Property and Surrounding Area The subject property is located at 117 Wellons Street within the West End District (2004) of the Suffolk Historic Conservation Overlay District. According to the National Register of Historic Places-Inventory Nomination Form for the West End District, the area sits approximately four blocks west of the original Suffolk Historic District. The West End neighborhood is roughly bounded by the CSX Railroad to the north, the Norfolk Southern Railroad to the south, Linden Avenue, Wellons Street and Pender Street to the east, and Brewer Street and Causey Avenue on the west. The streets are laid out in a perpendicular grid pattern fronted by long rectangular housing lots. The majority of the buildings in this neighborhood date from the last decade of the 19th century through the first four decades of the 20th century, and display the fashionable architectural styles of the period in which they were constructed. There are a few examples dating from the third quarter of the 19th century that proceed the area's major period of development. The dominant forms and styles found in the district include vernacular, Italianate, Queen Anne, Colonial Revival, Classical Revival, Tudor Revival, Bungalow/Craftsman, and American foursquare. The subject property features a contributing structure built after 1895. It consists of a stretcher HC2016-25 December 8, 2016 Page 2 bond solid brick foundation and is wood framed with aluminum siding. The 2½ story Queen Anne, features a hipped roof that consists of metal shingles that are painted red. There is a red painted standing seam metal roof over the front porch. The home has two chimneys, one (1) that is visible from the public right-of-way and one (1) that is hidden from public view behind the structure’s hipped roof. Proposed Action The owner is seeking approval to replace a metal shingled roof, painted red in color, with a standing seam metal roof that will match the existing color of the roof. The roof over the covered porch will not be impacted as a part of the proposal as the existing standing seam metal roof will remain in that area. The applicant is also requesting the removal of two (2) deteriorating chimneys (above the roof line) located on the structure. One (1) of the chimneys proposed for demolition is visible from the right-of-way and is most prominent from the intersection of Wellons and Jackson Streets. The second chimney is located on the rear of the structure and is screened in its entirety from the public right-of-way. Public Notice Public notice of this meeting was published in the newspaper and notices were mailed to adjacent property owners on November 18, 2016. Applicable Regulations and Analysis A. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) 1. Section 31-413(f)(1), Certificate of Appropriateness: Where exterior appearance of any structure as viewed from any street or public way is involved, the Zoning Administrator shall issue no permit for erection, alteration, or improvement unless and until a Certificate of Appropriateness has been issued. 2. Section 31-413(g)(2), General Considerations C. The historical or architectural value and significance of the building, structure or appurtenant element and its relationship to the historic or architectural value of the area in which it is proposed to be located. E. The compatibility of planned improvements and renovations with the architectural and historic quality, character, and scale of the historic buildings in the City of Suffolk. 3. Section 31-413(g)(5)(B), Approval of Certain Minor Actions by the Administrator (ii). Application or use of exterior materials of the same type, color or texture of those already in use which will substantially cover one or more sides of the structure but which will not result in destruction or replacement of original exterior material. This provision applies to roofing as well as siding. (iii). Minor additions or deletions to the structure which will not substantially HC2016-25 December 8, 2016 Page 3 change the architectural character of the structure. 4. Section 31-413(g)(7), Approval of Major Action by the HLC (vii) Any change or alteration of the exterior architectural style of a designated landmark or contributing property, including removal or rebuilding of porches, dormers, cupolas, stairways, terraces and the like. B. Suffolk Historic District Design Guidelines 1. Chapter 1, Section E, Categories of Significance with the Historic Conservation Overlay District, Contributing Structures: Historic or non-historic structures contribute to the overall historic character of the historic district through the compatibility of their design, character, scale, material, and detailing. They are not, however, significant enough to be designated as landmarks. 2. Chapter 2, Section E, Certificate of Appropriateness: A Certificate of Appropriateness is similar to a building permit in that it is required whenever the exterior appearance of any structure in the Historic Conversation Overlay District, as viewed from any street or public way, is erected, altered, or improved. 3. Chapter 4, Section F.1.a, Masonry, Background: Masonry includes brick, terra cotta, concrete, stucco, tile, and mortar and is used in making cornices, pediments, lintels, sills, and decorative features, as well as building walls, retaining walls, and chimneys. The color, texture, mortar joint type, and patterns of the masonry help define the overall character of a building. A number of residential buildings, all of the churches and school buildings in the Suffolk Historic Conversation Overlay District used masonry as their primary material. Among the bonding patterns found on these buildings are Flemish, common, and on newer structures, running bond. Within the Suffolk Historic Conservation Overlay District, several common masonry problems have been observed. These include cracked or broken bricks and concrete, poor repointing, and stained bricks. Repair and repointing of masonry can require the services of professionals or technical assistance from preservation experts or the Virginia Department of Historic Resources. 4. Chapter 4, Section F.1.b, Masonry, Guidelines for Masonry:  Retain masonry features such as walls, railings, cornices, window surrounds, pediments, steps, and columns that are important in defining the overall character of the building. The size, texture, color, and pattern of masonry units, as well as mortar joint size and tooling shall be respected.  Monitor the condition of mortar and the masonry units. Prevent water from causing deterioration by insuring proper drainage, removing vegetation too close to the building, repairing leaking roofs, gutters, and downspouts, securing loose flashing, caulking joints between masonry and wood and repairing cracks and unsound mortar. HC2016-25 December 8, 2016 Page 4  Conditions Statement: A signed statement, with exhibits, from a licensed mason or general contractor stating the condition of the existing masonry, ability to be repaired, need for replacement, proposed corrective measures, and options to replacement is required as supporting documentation for any application for a Certificate of Appropriateness. 5. Chapter 5, Section I.2. Residential Building Design Considerations, Roofs: Historic roof elements such as chimneys and roof ornamentation that contribute to the style and character of the building shall be retained. 6. Chapter 5, Section I.3. Residential Building Design Considerations, Roofs: Maintain critical flashing around joints and ensure proper functioning of the gutter system. Keep metal surfaces painted with the exception of copper roofs, and use the appropriate primer for the particular types of metal roof. Insure proper ventilation of the attic spaces to prevent condensation. 7. Chapter 5, Section I.4. Residential Building Design Considerations, Roofs: When replacing a roof, match original materials as closely as possible. Avoid, for example, replacing a standing seam metal roof with asphalt shingles, as this would dramatically alter the building’s appearance. C. Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation 1. Building Exterior - Roofs: The roof-with its shape; features such as cresting, dormers, cupolas, and chimneys; and the size, color, and patterning of the roofing material-is an important design element of many historic buildings. In addition, a weather tight roof is essential to the long term preservation of the entire structure. 2. Building Exterior – Roofs – Recommended: Identifying, retaining, and preserving roofs-and their functional and decorative features-that are important in defining the overall historic character of the building. This includes the roof's shape, such as hipped, gambrel, and mansard; decorative features such as cupolas, cresting, chimneys, and weathervanes; and roofing material such as slate, wood, clay tile, and metal, as well as its size, color, and patterning. 3. Building Exterior – Roofs – Recommended: Replacing in kind an entire feature of the roof that is too deteriorated to repair-if the overall form and detailing are still evident- using the physical evidence as a model to reproduce the feature. Examples can include a large section of roofing, or a dormer or chimney. If using the same kind of material is not technically or economically feasible, then a compatible substitute material may be considered. 4. Building Exterior – Roofs – Not Recommended: Removing a feature of the roof that is unrepairable, such as a chimney or dormer, and not replacing it; or replacing it with a new feature that does not convey the same visual appearance. HC2016-25 December 8, 2016 Page 5 Staff Analysis Generally, the replacement of the roof (with appropriate like materials) and the removal of a non-prominent roof appurtenance (the chimney not visible from a public street) may be handled administratively. However, in this case the applicant has elected to seek approval of these items in concert with the removal of the prominent chimney on the structure, which is significant due to its visibility and classification as an important character-defining appurtenance on a contributing structure. Accordingly, removal of this original element requires approval by the HLC. Requesting a single Certificate of Appropriateness allows the applicant to pursue all of his improvement goals in a consolidated fashion and eliminates the need for a separate application seeking administrative approval. As mentioned above, the applicant is requesting to replace an existing metal shingle roof, painted red, with a standing seam metal roof painted red that will closely match the existing roof. The existing roof is quite worn and in need of replacement. The proposed materials and color are consistent with the regulations found within the Unified Development Ordinance and the guidance provided in Chapter 5, Section I.4 of the Suffolk Historic Design Guidelines. Specifically, the proposal will result in a roof that will closely match the original in material and composition. Both chimneys proposed for removal are constructed of solid brick in a stretcher bond pattern. The brick on these chimneys has been painted red at some point and blends well with the color of the roof. According to the National Register of Historic Places-Inventory Nomination Form for the West End District (2004), the contributing structure at 117 Wellons Street is noted to have only one (1) chimney, which is likely a product of the second chimney being located near the rear of the structure and thus screened entirely by the structure’s hipped roof from the public streets it fronts. The front chimney is visible from Wellons and Jackson Streets and features a tall H style chimney cowl made of metal and typical of the early 20th century. The slender profile of the chimney is also typical of the late Victorian and Edwardian periods. Chimneys are an important roof component and reflective of the period of construction as demonstrated by the contributing homes found throughout the West End District (2004). All nine (9) of the contributing residential structures found on the 100 block of Wellons Street have prominent chimneys, all of which are located within the interior of the structure, like those at the subject property. The Guidelines specifically state that historic roof elements such as chimneys and roof ornamentation that contribute to the style and character of the building shall be retained. Removal of visible portions of a chimney would conflict with this section as well as with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards stated above. Instead, these elements should be retained if repairable and replaced with elements of like materials and form if not. Summary and Recommendations Staff finds the replacement roof material and color appropriate and consistent with the guidelines and regulations controlling exterior improvements within the Historic Conservation Overlay HC2016-25 December 8, 2016 Page 6 District. Additionally, the removal of the rear chimney that is not visible from Wellons or Jackson Streets is in line with what is permissible within the district, as it is considered a “minor deletion to the structure which will not substantially change the architectural character of the structure.” However, removal of the more prominent chimney conflicts with the requirements outlined within the District Guidelines and the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for rehabilitation and the regulations found within the UDO. Staff recommends that this chimney instead be rehabilitated, if feasible, or replaced utilizing in kind materials and details to reproduce the original feature. After evaluation, staff believes that the criteria of the Historic District Design Guidelines can be met based on the above findings-of-fact and the conditions outlined below. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the following actions and conditions in regard to HC2016-25: 1. Replacement of the existing metal shingle roof with a standing seam metal roof of matching color. 2. Removal of the rear chimney. 3. Repair of the front chimney visible from the public right-of-way. If the chimney cannot be repaired, it shall be replaced utilizing in kind materials and details to reproduce the original feature. The existing chimney cowl shall be retained and reused if replacement of the chimney is necessary. 4. No additional exterior improvements shall be permitted without the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness. 5. All required permits shall be obtained from the City of Suffolk. HC2016-25  HC2016-25 ZONING / LAND USE MAP 34G17(2)A*5 RM 34G17(2)B*4 34G17(2)A*4 34G17(A)*6 34G17(3)*D 34G17(A)*9 34G17(4)*1 34G17(2)A*1*2 34G17(2)A*2A*3 34G17(3)*C R B R E WE 34G17(2)B*1 PENDER 34G17(3)*B+E 34G17(A)*7 HEN LEY 34G17(3)*A 34G17(A)*10 34G17(A)*13 34G17(A)*15 34G17(A)*16 CBD 34G17(A)*17*17A 34G17(A)*268 34G17(A)*18*18A WASHING TO N 34G17(A)*267 34G17(A)*243 34G17(A)*266 34G17(A)*244 34G17(A)*242 34G17(5)*B 34G17(A)*201 34G17(A)*241 34G17(A)*199 34G17(A)*269A 34G17(A)*240 34G17(A)*265 34G17(A)*202 34G17(A)*270 34G17(A)*239A 34G17(A)*264 34G17(A)*245 34G17*(A)*239 34G17(A)*203 34G17(A)*206 34G17(A)*193 34G17(A)*205 ME S 34G17(A)*204 34G17(A)*207 34G17(A)*238 34G17(A)*263 34G17(A)*246 SAINT J 34G17(A)*271 34G17(A)*246A A 34G17*(A)*237 JACKSO N 34G17(A)*262 34G17(A)*247 34G17(A)*272 34G17(A)*229 34G17(A)*236 34G17(A)*261 RM 34G17(A)*248 34G17(A)*273 34G17(A)*230 34G17(A)*235 34G17(A)*228 34G17(A)*260 34G17(A)*249 34G17(A)*226 34G17(A)*274*275 34G17(A)*231 34G17(A)*227 34G17(A)*234 34G17(A)*225 34G17(A)*259 NS 34G17(A)*250 WE L L O 34G17(A)*233 34G17(A)*276 34G17(A)*232 34G17(A)*224 34G17(A)*258 34G17(A)*251 s 34G17(A)*277 34G17(A)*289 34G17(A)*257 34G17(A)*252 34G17(A)*290 34G17(A)*253 34G17(A)*256 34G17(A)*291 34G17(A)*288 34G17(A)*293 34G17(A)*255 34G17(A)*292 34G17(A)*294 34G17(6)*A 34G17(6)*B 34G17(A)*287 O-I SM ITH 34G17(A)*295 34G17(A)*278 34G17(A)*284 34G17(A)*279 34G17(A)*281 34G17(A)*283*282 34G17(A)*286 34G23(A)*46  HC2016-25 03/05/2016 HC2016-25 117 Wellons Street Street Panorama 117 Wellons Street  HC2016-25 117 Wellons Street Street Panorama (Looking North) 117 Wellons Street HC2016-25 117 Wellons Street  CITY OF SUFFOLK 442 W. WASHINGTON STREET, P.O. BOX 1858, SUFFOLK, VIRGINIA 23439-1858 PHONE: (757) 514-4060 FAX: (757) 514-4099 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Division of Planning To: Historic Landmarks Commission From: Amy Thurston, Planner I Date: December 8, 2016 Subject: REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, HC-2016- 00026, submitted by Thomas Dawson of Mid-Atlantic Coatings, Inc., agent, and Philip Ford, trustee, on behalf of Glebe Episcopal Church, property owner, for the replacement of the current Norfolk (concrete) Tile and cedar shake roof with a Buckingham Slate roofing system and replacement of water damaged and mismatched cornices, frieze, moldings and soffits with like-kind wood on property located at 4400 Nansemond Parkway. The property is further identified as Zoning Map 20, Parcel 5, Cypress Voting Borough, zoned RLM, Residential Low-Medium Density, and HC, Historic Conservation Overlay District. STAFF REPORT Background The Glebe Episcopal Church, originally known as Bennett’s Creel Church, is a rectangular colonial brick building constructed circa 1737-1738 and rebuilt in 1856, based on the National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form. The property was listed on the Virginia Landmarks Register in 1972 and the National Register of Historic Places in 1973. The structure is described as having a 19th century gable roof with wooden pedimented gable ends and is noted for its fine colonial brickwork. The existing cornice detail has been heavily altered and generally resembles the Ionic order (Chapter 4 of the Historic Guidelines). As of 1973, Glebe Church was only one of two colonial churches that remained in Nansemond County, prior to consolidation into the City of Suffolk in 1974. According to the applicant, the existing Norfolk Tile roof on the sanctuary was installed between 1890 and 1920 and the existing tin roof located on the attached sacristy was installed approximately 20 years ago. Over the past several years, the Church has noticed that the roof and soffits were leaking and causing damage to ceilings, interior walls and woodwork. Although the Church has hired contractors to make repairs, the problem still persists today. Several licensed contractors who have inspected the condition of the roofing, cornices, frieze, moldings and HC-2016-00026 December 8, 2016 Page 2 soffits suggest that the roofing material has far exceeded its lifetime and is need of replacement, along with the damaged and mismatched moldings. Photos of the existing conditions are attached to this report. Public Notice Public notice of this meeting was published in the newspaper and notices were mailed to adjacent property owners. Proposed Action The applicant’s request consists of the following parts (1) Roofing and (2) Cornices, Frieze, Moldings and Soffits: 1. Roofing: • Remove existing deteriorated Norfolk (concrete) Tile and cedar shake roof on the main sanctuary. • Remove red tin roof on small sacristy attached to the west end of the Church. • Remove asphalt shingles on the covered crossover between the sanctuary and parish office building. • All other buildings on the property are to remain unaffected. • Replace sanctuary roof, sacristy roof, and covered crossover roof with 9” x 18” (approximate size) Buckingham Blue-Black Slate. 2. Cornices, Frieze, Moldings and Soffits: • Remove damaged, mismatched cornices, frieze, moldings and soffits where needed. • Properly remove all lead based paint on the above mentioned features. • Replace mismatched cornices, frieze, moldings and soffits with new wood consistent throughout. • All cornices, frieze, moldings and soffits are to be painted with PPG, Super Premium Exterior Paint, Manor Hall Timeless Exterior Satin or Semi-Gloss, Color White. Contractors Statements 1. Nicholas Price of Stevens Roofing Corporation submitted a letter (dated June 13, 2014) as part of this application stating that they have made some temporary roof repairs to the sanctuary roof and have found that the roof riles have exceeded their usefulness and 75-year estimated life span; therefore, they recommend installing a new roof system. 2. Wayne Wilkinson of Wayne Enterprises submitted a letter (dated October 27, 2016) as part of this application stating that they have surveyed the existing roof and cornice elements and have found that there has been significant water damage, deterioration and patch work repairs. As a result, they recommend the woodwork for these elements be replaced. 3. Brad Jones of Buckingham Slate Company submitted a letter (dated October 21, 2016) as part of this application stating that the proposed roofing material, Buckingham Blue- HC-2016-00026 December 8, 2016 Page 3 Black Slate, is the same slate that has been quarried and manufactured in Virginia for more than two centuries. Mr. Jones also provided a list of historic homes, churches and public buildings that have Buckingham Slate roofs. 4. Thomas Olson of Buckingham Slate Company submitted a letter (dated February 10, 2012) as part of this application describing the specifications of the Buckingham Slate tile. 5. Kelly Ray of C.R. Sledge Company submitted a letter (dated September 22, 2014) as part of this application stating that the current cement roofing and chimney flashing materials tested positive for Asbestos and proper remediation would be needed during any demolition. Similar Colonial Churches The applicant provided three images of similar colonial-style churches which use Buckingham Slate roof tiles. 1. Christ Church, Weems, Virginia 2. Trinity Church, Portsmouth, Virginia 3. St. Paul’s, Portsmouth, Virginia Surrounding Characteristics The subject property is located on Nansemond Parkway directly east of Bennett’s Creek, about one-quarter mile east of the intersection of Kings Highway and Nansemond Parkway and one- quarter mile west of Florence Bowser Elementary school. The site also abuts the Suffolk Seaboard Coastline Trail to the north. Agricultural fields are located to the east and south of the property, and single-family homes are located to the west. Below, please find a list of adjacent structures, none of which are contributing to the Historic Conservation Overlay District. 4540 Nansemond Pkwy- Florence Bowser Elementary School site. This school was recently torn down and is being rebuilt; it is scheduled to reopen in 2018. 4344 Nansemond Pkwy- Detached House with ranch-style architecture constructed circa 1950. 3170 South Hampton Roads Trail- Detached accessory building constructed circa 2005. 4336 Nansemond Pkwy- Detached house with Vernacular Victorian architecture constructed circa 1908. Site Modifications The applicant does not propose any site modifications as part of this application. HC-2016-00026 December 8, 2016 Page 4 Applicable Regulations A. Unified Development Ordinance 1. Section 31-413(a)(3) Purpose and Intent. The district is designed to protect designated landmarks and other historic or architectural features and their surroundings within a reasonable distance from destruction, damages, defacement and obviously incongruous development or uses of land. It is also designed to ensure that buildings, structures or signs shall be erected, reconstructed, altered or restored so as to be architecturally compatible with the historic landmark buildings or structures within the district. 2. Section 31-413(f)(1), Certificate of Appropriateness: Where exterior appearance of any structure as viewed from any street or public way is involved, the Zoning Administrator shall issue no permit for erection, alteration, or improvement unless and until a Certificate of Appropriateness has been issued. 3. Section 31-413(g)(2), General Considerations. B. The appropriateness of the general design geometry and proportions, structural arrangement, building materials, texture and color of the proposed building, structure or appurtenant element in relation to such factors as the compatibility with similar features of buildings or structures within the area circumscribed by the subject overlay district(s). D. The extent to which the building, structure or appurtenant element will be harmonious with or architecturally incompatible with the historic buildings within the subject overlay district(s). E. The compatibility of planned improvements and renovations with the architectural and historic quality, character, and scale of the historic buildings in the City of Suffolk. 4. Section 31-413(g)(7), Approval of Major Action by the HLC. (v) Any alteration to exterior building materials or color of materials. (vii) Alteration of the roof line of a designated landmark or contributing property. B. Suffolk Historic District Design Guidelines 1. Chapter 1, Section E, Categories of Significance within the Historic Conservation Overlay District, Landmarks: Historic buildings or structures that are at least 50 years old and districts, objects, or sites that are historically significant because of any of the following criteria: a) Representative of a significant architectural style; (b) Association with a significant historical place; (c) Association with a significant individual; or (d) Association with a significant historic event. In general, most of the buildings within the local historic district are significant because they represent important architectural styles. 2. Chapter 1, Section F, Goals within the Historic Conservation Overlay District, Continued Use of Historic Buildings: It is a goal of the Historic Conservation Overlay District to HC-2016-00026 December 8, 2016 Page 5 continue the use of historic buildings as originally intended. Such continued use is essential to the revitalization of the overall historic district and the preservation of the buildings. To this end, rehabilitation and preservation efforts are vital to accomplishing this goal by maintaining the appearance, dignity and integrity of the historic structures. 3. Chapter 1, Section F, Goals within the Historic Conservation Overlay District, Rehabilitation of Deteriorating Historic Structures: The deterioration of historic buildings has become a major problem within the historic district. Rehabilitation efforts are essential in order to prevent the historic qualities of downtown and revitalization of the district. Routine maintenance, painting, and roof repairs are critical to preventing the deterioration and eventual loss of historic structures. Improvements such as installation of insulation, upgrading of electrical and mechanical systems, replacement of deteriorated features, and site improvements are also essential if these historic buildings are to ensure the revelation and preservation of the entire downtown area. 4. Chapter 1, Section F, Goals within the Historic Conservation Overlay District, Appropriate Design of Additions and Alterations for Buildings: Changes to historic buildings should be appropriately designed to be compatible with the architecture and overall character of the historic district. Additions and alterations to buildings require careful design in order to preserve and strengthen the character of the district. To this end, repair and maintenance activity involving exterior materials, finishes, windows, doors, awnings, signage, fencing and landscaping should be carefully planned to avoid negatively affecting the district’s overall character. 5. Chapter 2, Section E, Certificate of Appropriateness: A Certificate of Appropriateness is similar to a building permit in that it is required whenever the exterior appearance of any structure in the Historic Conversation Overlay District, as viewed from any street or public way, is erected, altered, or improved. 6. Chapter 2, Section O, Maintenance and Repair Required: Pursuant to Article 4, Section 31-413(m) of the UDO, Historic Landmarks Commission, or on appeal, the City Council, shall ensure that all buildings and structures in the Historic Conversation Overlay District are preserved against decay and deterioration and maintained free from structural defects which result in the irreparable deterioration of any exterior appurtenance or architectural feature or produce a detrimental effect upon the character of Historic Conservation Overlay District or upon the life and character of the structure itself. Examples include, but are not limited to: • The deterioration of exterior walls or other vertical supports; • The deterioration of roofs or other horizontal members; • The deterioration of exterior chimneys; • The deterioration or crumbling of exterior walls, roofs, and foundations, including broken windows and doors; • The peeling of paint, rotting, holes and other forms of decay; • The lack of maintenance to the surrounding environment; and • The deterioration of any feature so as to create or permit the creation of any hazardous of unsafe condition(s). HC-2016-00026 December 8, 2016 Page 6 7. Chapter 4, Section E.1.b. Typical Cornice Types: • Decorated Cornices may have moldings and detailing such as brackets, dentils, modillions, acanthus and dart molding, and friezes. They can be made of wood, metal or terra cotta. 8. Chapter 4, Section E.1.c. Guidelines for Cornices: • Maintain the gutter system and flashing. • Do not remove elements such as brackets or blocks, which are part of the original composition without replacing them with new ones of a like design. • Match materials, decorative details and profiles of existing original cornice design when making repairs. • Do not replace an original cornice with a new one that conveys a different period, style, or theme from that of the building. If the cornice is missing, base the replacement on physical evidence, or barring that, make the design compatible with the design of the original building. 9. Chapter 4, Section F.2.b. Guidelines for Wood Materials: • The main objective in wood maintenance is to keep it free from water infiltration and wood-boring pests. • Keep all surfaces primed and painted. • Use appropriate pest poisons with extreme caution and follow product instructions. • Remove vegetation that grows too closely to wood. • Repair leaking roofs, gutters, downspouts, and flashing and insure proper ventilation. • Maintain proper drainage around the foundation to prevent standing water. • Recaulk joints where moisture might penetrate a building. Do not caulk under individual siding boards or window sills. This action seals the building too tightly and can lead to moisture problems within the frame walls and to failure of paint. • Repair rotten or missing sections rather than replace the entire element. Use epoxies to patch, piece, or consolidate parts. Match existing materials and details. • To test for rotten wood, jab an ice pick into the wetted wood surface at an angle and pry up a small section. Sound wood will separate in long fibrous splinters while decayed wood will separate in short irregular pieces. Alternatively, insert the ice pick perpendicular to the wood. If it penetrates more than one-half inch the wood may have dry rot. • Replace wood elements only when they are rotten beyond repair. Match the original in material and design or use substitute materials that convey the same visual appearance. • Base the design of reconstructed elements on pictorial or physical evidence from the actual building rather than from similar buildings in the area. • In areas where wood is the predominant siding material, wood siding should be considered for use. • Wood is recommended for use on additions on elements such as windows, HC-2016-00026 December 8, 2016 Page 7 cornices, porch trim, and all other decorative features. • Materials other than historic materials which may replicate the qualities of the original may be acceptable as substitutes if the Historic Landmarks Commission determines that the substitute or synthetic material will produce the overall character, appearance, and performance. • Conditions Statement: A signed statement, with exhibits, from a licensed carpenter or general contractor stating the condition of the existing wood, ability to be repaired, need for replacement, proposed corrective measures, and options to replacement is required as supporting documentation for any application for a Certificate of Appropriateness. 10. Chapter 5, Section I.9 Condition Statement: A signed statement, with exhibits, from a licensed general contractor stating the condition of the existing roof, ability to be repaired, need for replacement, proposed corrective measures, and options for replacement is required as supporting documentation for any application for a Certificate of Appropriateness. C. Secretary of the Interior Standards (Appendix A of the Historic Guidelines) 1. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. 2. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. 3. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved. 4. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. 5. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. Staff Analysis The applicant has provided the necessary contractor statements, consistent with Section I.9, Chapter 5 of the Historic Guidelines, which all note that the roofing and cornice/molding details HC-2016-00026 December 8, 2016 Page 8 are beyond repair. Furthermore, the poor condition of the roof and cornice/molding elements is evidenced by the provided photos. In general, staff finds that the proposed materials and design are considered to be appropriate for the colonial architecture and period of the building. As stated in Chapter 1 of the Guidelines, changes to historic buildings should be appropriately designed to be compatible with the architecture and overall character of the historic district. Staff finds that the proposed materials are in keeping with the character of the surrounding properties and other properties located in the Suffolk Conservation Overlay District. Staff also believes that the new roof will blend cohesively with the existing features and materials used on the building. The roof material in place is no longer available and is not original to the structure. The proposed Buckingham Slate roof uses a traditional material and is an appropriate replacement material used extensively on church buildings of this period. Overall, the proposed roofing material is consistent with the historic roof material guidelines. In regard to cornices, the proposed replacement of the existing wooden cornices, friezes, moldings and soffits is consistent with Chapter 4 of the Historic Guidelines for cornices and wood materials. As stated in the Guidelines, replacement cornices and wood materials must use a like-design which is compatible with the building. The applicant proposes to replace these elements and create a consistent cornice/molding design on all faces of the building. This, along with the new roof, will improve the visual appearance of the church without conveying a different period, style or theme as stated in Chapter 4, Section E.1.c. of the Historic Guidelines. Summary and Recommendations Based on the above findings-of-fact, staff recommends approval of HC-2016-26 with the conditions noted below: 1. Replace the deteriorated roof on the main sanctuary, sacristy, and covered crossover with 9” x 18” (approximate) Buckingham Blue-Black Slate Tiles. 2. Replace damaged and mismatched cornices, frieze, moldings and soffits with like-kind wood that is consistent throughout all faces of the building. 3. Paint all wood elements with PPG, Super Premium Exterior Paint, Manor Hall Timeless Exterior Satin or Semi-Gloss, Color White. 4. Any additional improvements shall require a Certificate of Appropriateness. 5. All required permits shall be obtained from the City of Suffolk. Attachments cc: Thomas Dawson, Mid-Atlantic Coatings, Inc. HC-2016-00026 December 8, 2016 Page 9 Philip Ford, trustee, on behalf of Glebe Episcopal Church, property owner  RLM HC2016-26 ZONING / LAND USE MAP 20*1 20*1 20D*11 20D*10 20D*12 20D*9 19*37E 20D*B 20D*17 20D*8 20D*13 20D*7 20D*16 20D*14 20D*6 20D*15 20*7 20D*5 20D*76 E 20D*75 IN 20*2A 20D*4 OL 20D*59 20D*74 R LL 20D*3 CA20D*58 20D*60 20D*73 UE BI20D*18 20D*61 20D*72 BL 20*6 20D*2 20D*57 20D*19 20D*1 20D*41 20D*56 20D*62 C 20D*71 20D*22 19K(1B)*18 20D*42 20D*55 20D*63 20D*70 20D*20 BA 20D*40 AS 20D*64 20D*23 20D*43 NV 20D*69 20D*21 20D*44 20D*54CA 20D*65 20D*39 19K(1B)*17 20D*38 20D*45 20D*53 K 20D*68 19K(1B)*16 20D*37 20D*46 20D*52 20D*66 20D*67 20D*C 20D*24 19K(1B)*9 20D*51 20D*25 20*7 20D*36 19K(1B)*10 ER 20D*26 19K(1B)*11 R 20D*50 20D*28 IV TE 19K(1B)*8 20D*A D OIN 20D*29 20D*27 P 20D*30 19K(1B)*6 20D*35 19K(1B)*7 20D*34 20D*31 M-1 19K(1B)*5 20D*32 19K(1B)*4 20D*33 19*39 RLM 35*X*1 20*3*2 20*6 19B*5*12*16 20*6A 20*3*1 20*3 19B*3*8*15 20*5 20*43A 19B*4*16*19 20*3A 19B*4*1*2*3*4*5 RLM 20*3B 19*39E 19B*1*1*4*7*13 NANSEMOND 19B*2*16*20 19*39A 19B*1*5*6 S 20*4 KING 19B*2*4*5*6*7 19*39D 19B*2*9*10*11 B-2 19B*1 19*39C M-1 19B*1B 19B*3 20*4C RR 19B*1*A 35*X*1 19*46 20*43 19*46G 20*4B DAY FARM M-1 s 19*46 B-2 20*4A M-1 19*46F 20*42A*1 20*42A 20*44 20*42A*2 19*46A*46B 19*46C 19*46H OUTLAW 19*46C*1 Residential Urban HC-2016-00026, 4400 Nansemond Parkway, Glebe Episcopal Church 1 HC-2016-00026, 4400 Nansemond Parkway, Glebe Episcopal Church 2 HC-2016-00026, 4400 Nansemond Parkway, Glebe Episcopal Church 3 HC-2016-00026, 4400 Nansemond Parkway, Glebe Episcopal Church 4 HC-2016-00026, 4400 Nansemond Parkway, Glebe Episcopal Church 5 HC-2016-00026, 4400 Nansemond Parkway, Glebe Episcopal Church 6 HC-2016-00026, 4400 Nansemond Parkway, Glebe Episcopal Church The following images illustrate the proposed cornice/molding replacement design. 7 HC-2016-00026, 4400 Nansemond Parkway, Glebe Episcopal Church The following images illustrate colonial churches with Buckingham Slate Roofs. Christ Church, Weems, VA St. Paul’s, Portsmouth, VA Trinity Church, Portsmouth, VA 8  Property Maintenance Code Enforcement Update December 2016 ADDRESS CODE VIOLATION(S) STATUS 342 N MAIN ST PROPERTY MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE FOR COURT 12/1/16 119 PINNER ST GRASS/WEEDS IN COMPLIANCE 109 OAKDALE TERRACE GRASS/WEEDS IN COMPLIANCE 215 GRACE ST PROPERTY MAINENANCE SCHEDULED FOR COURT 1/5/17 220 PINNER ST PROPERTY MAINTENANCE NOTICE OF VIOLATION ISSUED 224 PINNER ST PROPERTY MAINTENANCE IN COMPLIANCE 222 PINNER ST PROPERTY MAINTENANCE SCHEDULED FOR COURT 12/1/16 Zoning General District Court Docket December 2016 PROPERTY OWNER(s) LOCATION VIOLATION(s) JUDGEMENT INSPECTOR Zoning - replacing Suffolk Tower Holdings LLC 181 N Main St windows, no COA Continued to 1/5/2017 Ricky Nansemond Wharf Southside Zoning - Missing Properties 216 Bank St features, no COA New NOV Sent Ricky Zoning - Replacing porch Lakeisha Bradley 302 Bank St decking, no COA NOV/ Court Pending Ricky