Historic Landmarks Commission Packets

HISTORIC LANDMARKS COMMISSION February 9, 2017 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, February 8, 2017 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, February 9, 2017 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 HC-2016-24, submitted by Scott Alperin of Suffolk Tower Holdings, LLC, property owner, for the replacement of 17 wood windows with vinyl clad windows and the restoration of 11 Palladian windows at 181 N. Main Street, Zoning Map 34G18, Block (A), Parcel 324. The affected area is further identified as being located in the Suffolk Voting Borough, zoned CBD, Central Business District and HC (Historic Conservation Overlay District). V. Staff Reports A. Enforcement Update B. Administrative Approvals VI. Adjournment 2  MINUTES HISTORIC LANDMARKS COMMISSION January 12, 2017 9:00 A.M. The regular meeting of the Historic Landmarks Commission was held on Thursday, December 8, 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: Randy Hicks David Hainley, Director of Planning & Com. Dev. Susan Coley Bob Goumas, Assistant Director of Planning John Faircloth Karla Carter, Associate City Attorney Oliver Hobbs Kevin Wyne, Principal Planner Walter Boyette Amy Thurston, Planner I Edward King Jillian Scott-Hale, Office Assistant Vivian Turner Mary Austin Darden MEMBERS ABSENT: Merritt Draper The meeting was called to order by Chairman Hicks. The roll was called by Mr. Goumas and the Chairman was informed that a quorum was present. The minutes of the previous meeting were approved as presented. 3 REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS HC-2016-00027, submitted by Charles Parr, property owner, for the replacement of the current metal shingle roof with architectural shingles on property located at 514 West Washington Street, Zoning Map 34G17, Block (2)A, Parcel 1*2. The affected area is further identified as being located in the Suffolk Voting Borough, zoned CBD, Central Business District and HC, Historic Conservation Overlay District. The first item of business was introduced by the Chairman, followed by a staff report by Amy Thurston, Planner I. Ms. Thurston stated the property is located in the West End Historic District, within the Suffolk Historic Conservation Overlay District. This property is located on West Washington Street, between the blocks of North Broad Street and Brewer Avenue. Based on the National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet, the subject property is a contributing structure constructed circa 1885-1900 in Queen Anne architecture. The structure is noted as having a gable cross metal shingle roof. Ms. Thurston stated that in April, 2010 the property received a COA for the replacement of the existing metal shingle roof with 30-year architectural- grade shingles but since the work did not commence within 6 months a new COA is required. Ms. Thurston stated that the National Register of Historic Places Registration Form states that the roof materials historically used in the West End District include metal, tin, asphalt shingles and slate. Ms. Thurston stated that surrounding neighboring properties contains a combination of metal standing seam roofing and architectural shingles in the area. Ms. Thurston stated that existing metal tiles that are peeling and chipping; they have experienced substantial weathering that has caused leaks on the interior of the attic. Ms. Thurston stated that 4 water damage and discoloration has occurred on the wood sheathing, and there are gaps in the wood sheathing where you can actually see sunlight, with several areas of the roof where no protection is being provided at all. The applicant submitted a contractor statement (from November 2016) from Mr. James Durden, Jr. of Durden Construction, stating that the existing roof materials are beyond repair. Mr. Durden recommended replacement of the wood sheathing of the upper roof and new architectural shingles that will better protect the home. Ms. Thurston also stated the specific architectural shingle to be used would be the GAF Timberline Natural Shadow 33- square foot charcoal laminated shingles. Ms. Thurston provided an overview of the neighboring properties, generally describing the roofing materials of each noting that many have architectural shingle roofs and noting whether they were contributing structures. Ms. Thurston stated that when re-roofing becomes necessary, then, at a minimum, the roofing materials shall be upgraded to an architectural-grade shingle. Based on the above findings-of-fact, staff recommended approval of the application, HC2016-27, with the conditions noted below: 1. The main roof will be replaced with GAF Timberline Natural Shadow 33-square foot Charcoal Laminated Architectural Roof Shingles. 2. Any additional improvements shall require a Certificate of Appropriateness. 3. All required permits shall be obtained from the City of Suffolk. The public hearing was opened and speaking in favor of the application was John Jones, 468 Milford Lane. Mr. Jones stated that he is the co-owner of the house with Charles Parr and 5 concurs with staff recommendations. Mr. Jones re-iterated that several existing homes in the district have the agricultural shingles. Mr. Jones stated that the Board has in the past approved the agricultural shingles and the shingles on the house is in dire need of the renovations. There being no more speakers in favor or opposition, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Boyette made a motion to approve staff’s recommendation and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Faircloth and approved by a recorded vote of 7-0-1. (Commissioner Mary Austin Darden abstained) New Business: Enforcement Update Donald Bennett, (Planning & Community Development) reported on the following properties: 201 N. Main Street – court cased continued until February 2, 2017 212 Grace Street – fined $100.00 for property maintenance code violation New Business: Zoning Update Frederick Sample, (Planning & Community Development) reported on the following properties: 181 N. Main Street – Property in litigation, case continued until March 22, 2017 216 Bank Street – Case being sent to court 302 Bank Street – Case being sent to court 6 Commissioner Hobbs expressed interest in having a training class that will inform and aid the Commissioners in regard to making subjective decisions based off the historic district guidelines and the bylaws. Chairman Hicks followed up stating that would be a good idea and stated the city has in the past provided Commissioners the opportunity to attend historic trainings. Mr. Goumas stated that he would look into this request for the Commissioners. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:35 a.m. 7  HISTORIC LANDMARKS COMMISSION Motion: To Approve Staff’s Recommendation 1st: Boyette January 12, 2017 2nd: Faircloth ATTENDANCE HC-2016-00027 VOTE: 7-0-1 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT ABSENT YES NO Boyette, Walter, Vice-Chairman X X Coley, Susan M. X X Austin-Darden, Mary X ABSTAINED Draper, Merritt X Faircloth, John X X Hicks, Randy, Chairman X X Hobbs, Oliver X X King, Edward L. X X Turner, Vivian X X 8  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: February 9, 2017 Subject: REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS HC-2016-24, submitted by Scott Alperin of Suffolk Tower Holdings, LLC, property owner, for the replacement of 17 wood windows with vinyl clad windows and the restoration of 11 Palladian windows at 181 N. Main Street, Zoning Map 34G18, Block (A), Parcel 324. The affected area is further identified as being located in the Suffolk Voting Borough, zoned CBD, Central Business District and HC, Historic Conservation Overlay District. STAFF REPORT Proposed Action The applicant is seeking an after-the-fact approval to replace 10 wooden double-hung sash windows and approval to replace an additional 7 wooden double-hung sash windows on the second floor of the Suffolk Tower building located at 181 N. Main Street. The original windows are wood six-over-one, double-hung sash that are off-white in color. The applicant states that these are beyond repair and proposes to replace them with six-over-one, double-hung, Pinnacle vinyl clad windows in Sandstone, which closely matches SW 2822 Downing Sand in the approved Sherwin Williams Victorian Color Palette. Only windows on the second story are slated for replacement as a part of this application. The second story also contains 11 Palladian windows that will be restored and preserved as a part of this application. This will be accomplished by scraping and removing the existing paint and repainting them with SW 9110 Malabar, which also closely matches SW 2822 Downing Sand in the approved Victorian Color Palette. The remaining windows on the south façade and two smaller one-over-one and single pane windows on the west façade were not included with this application. Public Notice Public notice of this meeting was published in the newspaper and notices were mailed to HC2016-24 February 9, 2017 Page 2 adjacent property owners on January 25, 2017 Overview of the Subject Property and Surrounding Area The subject property is located within the Original Suffolk District (1987), which is significant due to its architectural integrity and its association with state and regional commercial, industrial and transportation history. As noted in the National Register Nomination Form, the district includes a variety of architectural designs that span from the late eighteenth century through the 1930s, including Vernacular, Federal, Italianate, Victorian, Neoclassical and Bungalow-style buildings. The North Main Street corridor contains commercial spaces, several substantial late nineteenth-century churches, a Masonic Hall, a U.S. Post Office, and Suffolk's oldest railroad depots. To the east and west of North Main Street are residential neighborhoods which contain dwellings built by workers and captains of industry during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries reflecting the intensified industrial growth that centered on the lumber and peanut processing trades. The Suffolk Historic District exhibits a cohesive architectural and historical fabric throughout. The subject property features a contributing structure built in 1924. Presently being used as an apartment house, the Suffolk Towers was known as the Elliott Hotel well into the 1960s. The eight story, four bay building was built in the American Renaissance style and consists of brick in a stretcher bond pattern and has a parapet roof. The building incorporates classical motifs throughout the façade, including jack arches with keystones and a full classical entablature below the parapet with triglyphs and modillions. The building is one of three high rise structures located within the Historic Conservation Overlay District and is the only high rise included in the footprint of the Original Suffolk District (1987). The building, along with the other two downtown high rises, dominates the downtown skyline and is a testimony to the final years of Beaux Arts-influenced architecture before the Depression. The windows on the building are a collection of both original and replacement windows. Most of the existing windows consist of double-hung, six-over-one configuration; however, a handful of one-over-one, six-over-six and nine-over-one windows have been installed. Case History On April 22, 2016, it came to the City’s attention that window replacement was taking place at 181 N. Main Street without the required Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for exterior improvements made on structures within the City’s Historic Conservation Overlay District. A site visit revealed that windows were indeed being replaced without the required COA and the City’s Community Development division issued a stop work order the same day, April 22, 2016. On April 29, 2016, the City observed additional windows being installed without the necessary COA and contacted the property owner, Suffolk Tower Holdings, LLC. During this conversation, the need for a COA was discussed and the City was informed that the contractor would be told to stop work. The property owner informed the City that he was unsure of how many windows his contractor had replaced and that his firm purchased the property in 2006, noting that many windows had been replaced prior to that time. HC2016-24 February 9, 2017 Page 3 A formal Notice of Violation was issued on May 1, 2016, and the owner was given three (3) days to file a completed, after the fact, COA application. A completed application was not filed within this time frame and the violation was referred to General District Court on June 6, 2016. The case first went before the court on August 4, 2016, where it was continued until November 3, 2016, to allow the property owner additional time to file the required application. An application was filed on October 4, 2016, and reviewed by staff for completeness. On October 19, 2016, the property owner was informed that the submitted application was incomplete and the City requested additional information that would be required before the application could continue to be processed. The case was once again continued in court on November 3, 2016, as the City worked with the applicant towards procuring a complete application. The Planning division followed up with the applicant on December 9, 2016, as the required additional information had not yet been received. On December 15, 2016, the applicant provided a response to the City’s request for additional information, thus securing a place on the Historic Landmark Commission’s (HLC) February 2017 agenda. Another court hearing was continued on January 5, 2017, to allow the application to go before the HLC. Several site inspections have been conducted at the property which has revealed over 100 windows that are not original to the building. The applicant has stated that only the 17 windows are slated for replacement, as requested in the addendum to the application received on December 15, 2016. As of this writing, at least 10 of the 17 sash windows on the second story have been replaced. At this time, the submitted application is only for the restoration of the 11 second story Palladian windows and replacement of 17 second story sash windows. City staff will continue to work to determine when the other original windows throughout the rest of the structure were replaced. One previous Certificate of Appropriateness, HC2014-00035AD, was approved for this property in November 2014 for a 32 square foot wall sign on the Market Street side of the second story. Contractor Statement In support of the Certificate of Appropriateness application, the applicant has provided a contractor’s statement which notes that the current wood windows are deteriorating and that some are in poor/bad condition. Replacement of these windows is recommended by the contractor, as many of the existing windows are non-functional due to deterioration to the point that many cannot open. Additionally, the contractor’s statement states that replacement of these deteriorating windows would allow for increased energy efficiency. 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 HC2016-24 February 9, 2017 Page 4 and until a Certificate of Appropriateness has been issued. 2. 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). 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. 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. 3. Section 31-413(g)(7), Approval of Major Action by the HLC (v) Any alteration to exterior building materials or color of materials B. Suffolk Historic District Design Guidelines 1. Chapter 1, Section E, Categories of Significance within 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, Exterior Elements, Materials and Colors, Section C. Window Openings: Windows and door openings are a major character and style- determining feature of an historic building. These elements usually act together visually to define the directional emphasis and proportions of the façade as well as the style. It is very important that the windows of an historic building be preserved where possible to maintain their size and details (e.g. muntin patterns, mullion spacing and width, transoms, trim details, etc.). 4. Chapter 4, Exterior Elements, Materials and Colors, Section C.2. Typical Window Types: HC2016-24 February 9, 2017 Page 5 • Double-Hung Sash is the most common type of windows and is used on all styles of architecture. As noted in the following examples, their appearance can vary with the number of panes in each sash and building style: 5. Chapter 4, Exterior Elements, Materials and Colors, Section C.3. Guidelines for Window Preservation: • Preserve Original Windows: Insure that all hardware is in good operating condition, that caulk and glazing putty are intact and in good condition, and that water drains off the sills. • Maintain Original Windows: Maintain original windows by patching, splicing, consolidating or otherwise reinforcing the wooden members. Wood that appears to be in bad condition because of peeling paint or separated joints often can be repaired. Uncover and repair covered-up windows and reinstall windows where they have been blocked in. If the window is no longer needed, the glass should be retained and the back side frosted, screened, covered with dark painted plywood on the inside, or shuttered so that it appears from the outside to be in use. If repair of an original window is necessary, repair only the deteriorated element to match the original in size, composition, material, dimension, and detail by patching, splicing, consolidating, or otherwise reinforcing the deteriorated section. The removal of historic materials shall be avoided. • Avoid Replacing Original Windows: Replace windows only when they are missing or beyond repair. Reconstruction should be based on physical evidence or old photographs, when available. Replacement windows should be designated to match the original in appearance, detail, material, profile, and overall size as closely as possible. Do not use inappropriate materials or finishes that radically change the sash, depth of reveal, muntin configuration, the reflective quality or color of the glazing, or the appearance of the frame. • Maintain the Original Window Patterns: Do not change the number, location, size, or glazing pattern of windows by cutting new openings, blocking in windows, or installing replacement sash that do not fit the window opening. • Improve Thermal Qualities: Improve thermal efficiency with weather stripping, storm windows (preferably interior), caulking, interior shades, and if appropriate for the building, shutters (blinds) and awnings. Install interior storm windows with airtight gaskets, ventilating holes, and/or removable clips to insure proper maintenance and to avoid condensation damage to windows. Install exterior storm windows that do not damage or obscure the windows and frames. The storm windows divisions should HC2016-24 February 9, 2017 Page 6 match those of the original window. Avoid unpainted aluminum storm sashes. This type of window can be painted an appropriate color if it is first primed with a zinc chromate primer. Avoid replacing a multi-paned sash with new thermal sash utilizing false snap-in muntins. Do not replace windows or transoms with fixed thermal glazing. Do not use tinted glass on major facades of the building. • Appropriate Use of Shutters: Use shutters only on windows that show evidence of their use in the past. They should be wood rather than metal or vinyl and be mounted on hinges attached to the frame. A correctly sized shutter will only cover the glass. Shutters are generally inappropriate on composite or bay windows. • Maintain Consistency of Window Types: Maintain window types that reflect those types found in the district. • Preserve and Maintain Historic Solid/Void Ratio: Preserve the ratio of solids (walls) and voids (windows and doors) of new buildings as they relate to and are compatible with adjacent historic facades. Historic residential buildings have a higher ratio of wall to window than do commercial buildings. • Preserve Proportions and Rhythm of Windows: Maintain the rhythm and placement of windows on the facades of new buildings as they relate to neighboring historic buildings. Maintain the proportion of window openings or the relationship between height and width to be similar to and compatible with those on surrounding historic facades. Most residential windows have a vertical proportion. However, these individual vertical windows may be grouped in such a way as to form a composite window that has a horizontal proportion. • Preserve Historic Articulation of Window Openings: Preserve the articulation of openings as they relate to historic building types. Frames should be recessed in masonry openings and raised frames should be used on wood buildings. New windows should not be flush with the wall surface. • New Window Materials: New windows may be constructed of painted wood, metal clad or vinyl clad. Unfinished or anodized aluminum is not permitted. When evaluating the acceptability of replacement windows, the following criteria shall be used: o Kind and texture of materials; o Architectural and historical compatibility; o Comparison to original window profile; o Level of significance of original windows to the architectural style HC2016-24 February 9, 2017 Page 7 of the building; and Material performance and durability. • Conditions Statement: A signed statement, with exhibits, from a licensed general contractor stating the condition of the existing windows, 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. C. Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings • Windows - Identify, Retain and Preserve – Recommended: o Identifying, retaining, and preserving windows--and their functional and decorative features--that are important in defining the overall historic character of the building. Such features can include frames, sash, muntins, glazing, sills, heads, hoodmolds, paneled or decorated jambs and moldings, and interior and exterior shutters and blinds. • Windows - Identify, Retain and Preserve – Not Recommended: o Removing or radically changing windows which are important in defining the historic character of the building so that, as a result, the character is diminished. o Changing the number, location, size or glazing pattern of windows, through cutting new openings, blocking-in windows, and installing replacement sash that do not fit the historic window opening. o Changing the historic appearance of windows through the use of inappropriate designs, materials, finishes, or colors which noticeably change the sash, depth of reveal, and muntin configuration; the reflectivity and color of the glazing; or the appearance of the frame. o Obscuring historic window trim with metal or other material. o Stripping windows of historic material such as wood, cast iron, and bronze. o Replacing windows solely because of peeling paint, broken glass, stuck sash, and high air infiltration. These conditions, in themselves, are no indication that windows are beyond repair. • Windows – Replace – Recommended: o Replacing in kind an entire window that is too deteriorated to repair using the same sash and pane configuration and other design details. If using the same kind of material is not technically or economically feasible when replacing windows deteriorated beyond repair, then a compatible substitute material may be considered. • Windows – Replace – Not Recommended: HC2016-24 February 9, 2017 Page 8 o Removing a character-defining window that is unrepairable and blocking it in; or replacing it with a new window that does not convey the same visual appearance. Staff Analysis As noted above, the applicant is requesting to replace 17 wooden, six-over-one, double-hung sash windows on the second story with vinyl clad double-hung, six-over-one windows that will be beige in color. As previously noted, 10 of the requested 17 windows have already been replaced. The replacement windows appear to be all vinyl windows with interior grids and are not in compliance with District Guidelines. Vinyl clad windows, which are requested by the applicant, are constructed of wood with a vinyl cladding that provides the finish and helps protect against the elements. This type of window can provide a structure, depth, and profile similar to wood windows and may be permitted when original wood windows are beyond repair and replacement is necessary. As required under Chapter 4 of the Historic District Guidelines, original windows are to be replaced only when they are missing or beyond repair. Reconstruction should be based on physical evidence, and replacement windows should match the original in appearance, detail, material, profile, and overall size as closely as possible. The Guidelines specify that inappropriate materials or finishes that radically change the sash, depth of reveal, muntin configuration, the reflective quality or color of the glazing, or the appearance of the frame shall not be used. When new windows are used, the Guidelines specify that they may be constructed of painted wood, metal clad or vinyl clad. The Secretary of Interior’s Standards also recommend identifying, retaining, and preserving windows that are important in defining the overall historic character of the building, and replacing with like materials when necessary. As noted in the contractor’s statement provided by the applicant, the original sash windows are deteriorating and some are in poor condition. Although the contractor recommends replacement, there is no indication that all of the windows are beyond repair. Windows that can be repaired should be restored and retained in compliance with the Guidelines, as is the case with the ornamental Palladian windows. Because the second story is a prominent and cohesive part of this building’s façade, any windows that must be replaced and are visible from adjacent streets should be wood and of the same design and profile as the original windows to maintain visual consistency. The replacement windows proposed by the applicant are to be vinyl clad and will utilize a six- over-one sash configuration like the existing wood windows. However, the existing wood windows are true divided light windows, with muntins exposed on the exterior. Specifically, the existing windows possess a noticeable muntin depth, thickness and exterior exposure that are easily evident from street level even at the highest floors of the structure. The applicant does not indicate whether the replacement vinyl clad windows would utilize applied grids or muntins. The replacement windows that have already been installed are simulated divided light vinyl windows HC2016-24 February 9, 2017 Page 9 with interior grids that have no exterior exposure. Both the material and the profile of these windows impact their visual appearance as they lack the character defining quality and depth of the original windows from the adjacent streets. In addition to the replacement of the 17 double-hung windows, the applicant is proposing to restore 11 Palladian windows on the second story. The applicant will scrape these windows of the existing paint and repaint them beige. Staff finds this proposed action to be consistent with the City’s Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) and the District Guidelines, as well as the standards established by the Secretary of Interior for rehabilitation of historic structures. With the exception of one window that has already been replaced, the windows on the south façade are not included as a part of this application. In addition, two smaller one-over-one and single pane windows were excluded from this application. The Suffolk Tower building is located at one of the most visible intersections in Suffolk’s historic downtown area, and, as mentioned above, dominates the City’s downtown skyline. The lower two floors of this building are directly adjacent to N. Main and Market Street, and all of its architectural details are readily apparent. As such, replacement of important architectural features should be handled carefully and stay true to the original craftsmanship and design the structure was afforded during its construction in 1924. The design, detail, and material of the proposed replacement windows, particularly in this prominent location and on such a notable structure, must be compatible with the District Guidelines and with the intent of the City’s Unified Development Ordinance. Summary and Recommendations Staff finds the restoration of the Palladian windows on the second story appropriate and consistent with the guidelines and regulations controlling exterior improvements within the Historic Conservation Overlay District. However, staff finds both the design of the proposed replacement windows and the use of vinyl clad to replace solid wood windows on the prominent façades of the Suffolk Tower building inconsistent with the requirements outlined within the District Guidelines and the Secretary of Interior’s standards and the regulations found within the UDO. Specifically, the replacement windows will not achieve a design that will match the original windows in appearance, detail, material, profile, and overall size as closely as possible, as instructed in the district guidelines. 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 HC2016-24: 1. Restoration of the second story Palladian windows by scraping the existing paint and repainting the windows using SW 9110 Malabar. 2. Repair and retention of wood sash windows on the second story where feasible. A signed statement, with exhibits, from a licensed general contractor stating the condition of each original window, ability to be repaired, need for replacement, and proposed corrective measures shall be provided. HC2016-24 February 9, 2017 Page 10 3. Replacement of irreparable wood sash windows and previously installed vinyl windows on the second story with double-hung, six-over-one wooden windows compatible in design, profile, and configuration with the windows original to the structure. 4. Painting of all windows with SW 2822 Downing Sand or equivalent from the approved Sherwin Williams Victorian Color Palette. 5. No additional exterior changes shall be permitted without the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness. 6. All required permits shall be obtained from the City of Suffolk. HC2016-24  ZONING MAP (HC2016-24) CBD RM RM MAI N 34G18(A)*324 CBD s HC2016-24 181 N. Main Street  Replacement Windows Original Windows HC2016-24 181 N. Main Street HC2016-24 181 N. Main Street Replacement Windows Original Windows HC2016-24 181 N. Main St. HC2016-24 South Elevation (Second Story) From: Tracey Unch To: Kevin M Wyne Subject: FW: Suffolk Tower Window Replacement HLC Application Date: Thursday, December 15, 2016 11:37:49 AM Good morning Kevin, Sorry for the delay and here you go: Happy holidays, Tracey -How many windows have already been replaced?  Only a few, we began installing in March and promptly stopped after we received the city citation of stop work notice. -How many windows are scheduled for replacement? How many windows will be replaced in total? 17 windows and only on the 2nd floor. -Are replacements proposed for all faces of the building? Yes, 2nd floor windows facing Main Street will be replaced except for the Palladian and ornamental windows. -In reviewing the application, it appears the current windows are/were white in color and are proposed to be replaced with Sherwin-Williams 9110 Malabar. Is this correct? Yes. -There are many 6 over 1 double hung windows on the first and second stories. Are these slated for replacement as well? Yes and only on the 2nd floor. -The 6 over 1 windows on the Market Street elevation have side lights on each side, will these windows and side lights be replaced or restored? No, Only 2nd floor with 6/1 replacement windows. -Could you provide details pertaining to the restoration of the ornamental and Palladian windows on the second floor? Colors and methods to be used? The doors will be scrapped with hand held scrapers and then hand painted with the Sherwin Williams 9110 Malabar paint. -According to Virginia DPOR records, Mr. Jesse Cox is a Class B General Contractor, is this accurate? Yes, do we need a class A contractor? -Are any of the 6 over 1 windows slated for restoration or are they all scheduled for replacement? 2nd floor are the scheduled windows for replacement. -Could you please provide us with color illustrations of the proposed replacements? Sherwin Williams SW 6149 Relaxed Khaki I understand that this is a great deal of information, however, it will be necessary to ensure we have the best information in moving the application forward to the HLC. To ensure we have time to adequately advertise your public hearing for November 10, we will need your responses no later than close of business tomorrow, as an ad needs to be submitted by noon on October 21. My apologies for the short turnaround. I look forward to working with you during this process. If you have any questions or require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me through email or at 757-514-4065. Thank you, Kevin Kevin M. Wyne, AICP Principal Planner City of Suffolk 442 W. Washington Street Suffolk, VA 23434 p: 757-514-4065 f: 757-514-4199  Property Maintenance Code Enforcement Update February 2017 ADDRESS CODE VIOLATION(S) STATUS 342 N MAIN ST PROPERTY MAINTENANCE REISSUED SUMMONS FOR 3/2/17 220 PINNER ST PROPERTY MAINENANCE REISSUED SUMMONS FOR 3/2/17 222 PINNER ST PROPERTY MAINENANCE REISSUED SUMMONS FOR 3/2/17 215 GRACE ST PROPERTY MAINENANCE REISSUED SUMMONS FOR 3/2/17 216 PEARL ST PROPERTY MAINTENANCE ISSUED NOTICE OF VIOLATION 212 GRACE STREET PROPERTY MAINTENANCE ISSUED NOTICE OF VIOLATION 118 PINNER ST PROPERTY MAINTENANCE SCHEDULED FOR COURT ON 2/2/17 Zoning General District Court Docket February 2017 PROPERTY OWNER(s) LOCATION VIOLATION(s) JUDGEMENT INSPECTOR Zoning - replacing Suffolk Tower Holdings LLC 181 N Main St windows, no COA Continued 3/2/2017 Ricky Nansemond Wharf Southside Zoning - Missing Properties 216 Bank St features, no COA Court 3/2/17 Ricky Raven P. Coston 222 Pinner St Zoning NOV Sent Ricky Zoning - Replacing porch Lakeisha Bradley 302 Bank St decking, no COA Court 3/2/17 Ricky