Historic Landmarks Commission Packets

HISTORIC LANDMARKS COMMISSION December 14, 2017 THE REGULAR MEETING WILL BE HELD AT 9:00 A.M. IN CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY HALL BUILDING THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING BY 12:00 NOON, WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 13, 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, December 14, 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 HLC2017-021, submitted by Jeffrey Townsend, property owner, for exterior material alterations at property located at 178 East Washington Street. The property is further identified as Zoning Map 34G18, Block (6), Parcel 5, Suffolk Voting Borough, zoned CBD, Central Business District, and HC, Historic Conservation Overlay District. 2. REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS HLC2017-022, submitted by Missi Cohn, agent for ForKids, property owner, for exterior material and color alterations, landscaping, and fencing on property located at 119 W. Constance Road, Zoning Map 34G11, Block (1), Parcel R*2A. 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 November 9, 2017 9:00 A.M. The regular meeting of the Historic Landmarks Commission was held on Thursday, November 9, 2017, 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: Susan Coley David Hainley, Planning & CD Director Merritt Draper Claire Jones, Comprehensive Planning Manager Randy Hicks Karla Carter, Deputy City Attorney Oliver Hobbs Amy Thurston, Planner I Edward King Kevin Wyne, Principal Planner Vivian Turner Jillian Scott-Hale, Office Assistant Mary Austin Darden MEMBERS ABSENT: Walter Boyette 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. A correction to the minutes was noted. Commissioner Draper stated that his reason for voting in opposition to the application for 112 Linden Avenue was to be consistent with past exceptions, not just cost. The minutes were approved as amended. 3 REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS HLC2017-017, submitted by Dwight Graves, property owner, for after-the-fact replacement of the roof and windows, and installation of brick skirting at 217 Pearl Street, Zoning Map 34G18, Block A, Parcel 172. The affected area is further identified as being located in the Suffolk Voting Borough, zoned RM, Residential Medium, and HC, Historic Conservation Overlay District. The first item of business was introduced by the Chairman, followed by report by Amy Thurston, Planner I. Ms. Thurston stated that the subject property is located within the Original Suffolk Historic District, zoned RM, Residential Medium Density. Ms. Thurston noted that the property owner visited the Planning Division office in August to inquire about the permitting process for property within the Historic District and was advised that a Certificate of Appropriateness must be obtained prior to making any exterior changes with the exception of routine maintenance. Staff specifically advised the owner that replacement of an asphalt shingle roof with architectural shingle would be supported by the standards of the Historic District Design Guidelines; however, the replacement of wood windows with vinyl windows would not comply with the requirements of the Guidelines. On September 25, a zoning inspector noticed that exterior changes had been made without a COA and sent a Notice of Violation to the property owner. The owner returned to the Planning Division office on October 2, 2017, to submit an after-the-fact COA application. At the time, the asphalt shingle roof had already replaced with architectural shingles, the wood windows had been replaced with vinyl windows, and the metal skirting was partially removed. There is also one (1) previous COA on file for the subject property from 2011, which allowed for in- kind repairs to the siding and skirting, as well as exterior painting. 4 Ms. Thurston described the context of the site, which consists entirely of contributing two- story Vernacular residential homes constructed between the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century. The overall appearance of Pearl Street is unchanged from the period of significance; therefore, this area has a strong cohesive historic impression. According to the National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form, the subject property is noted as a Vernacular home constructed circa 1885. The structure consists of weatherboard siding, three (3) bays, a pyramidal hipped roof with asphalt shingles, and a Vernacular porch with Tuscan columns. The windows are noted as six (6) over six (6) windows. The standards of the Historic District Design Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation state to replace windows only when they are missing or beyond repair. Reconstruction should be based on physical evidence and replacement windows should be designed to match the original in appearance, detail, material, profile, and overall size as closely as possible. The standards specifically state that new windows may be constructed of painted wood, metal clad or vinyl clad. Ms. Thurston stated that the present configuration of the window openings and trim indicates that the preexisting wood windows may not have been original to this structure but that they consist of an appropriate material and configuration for the Historic District. The proposed replacement windows, which were installed without a COA, consist entirely of vinyl with interior grids and do not convey the same appearance, profile, character, details, muntin configuration, or glazing as the preexisting wood windows. In addition, the bright white color of the replacement windows 5 does not match the existing cream window trim. A contractor’s condition statement was submitted in support of this application, which is required for review. The letter states that the old windows on the home had suffered substantial rot and deterioration, leaving no option but complete replacement; however, only one image was provided which does not appear to show much rot or disrepair. Ms. Thurston stated that in past decisions, the Historic Landmarks Commission has required that historic wood windows be replaced with compatible vinyl clad or metal clad windows which evoke the same appearance, profile, character, details, muntin configuration, and glazing. At a minimum, the HLC usually requires clad windows on the front of a structure and in any other areas that are visible to the public right-of-way. Secondly, the applicant requests to replace the preexisting asphalt shingle roof with architectural-grade Tamko singles in Virginia Slate. In accordance with the Guidelines, in cases where the original roofing material has already been replaced with asphalt shingles and re-roofing becomes necessary, then, at a minimum, the roofing material shall be upgraded to an architectural-grade shingle. The material and the color of the architectural shingles are appropriate for this building. Thirdly, the applicant proposes to remove the preexisting silver metal skirting around the foundation, which was not an original material, and replace it with a solid brick foundation to conceal the existing masonry piers. The color and dimensions of the new brick are proposed to match the brick utilized on the piers as closely as possible. Both solid brick foundations 6 and masonry pier foundations that are filled in with brick are common in the District, but the original masonry piers supporting the main structure are positioned such that they are only slightly recessed from the exterior building walls. It appears that if an entirely new brick skirt were installed on the exterior of the piers, the new skirt would protrude outward from the building walls. Furthermore, the masonry piers supporting the front porch are flush with the edge of the porch decking; thus, it appears that a new brick skirt in this area would protrude outward by the full width of the new bricks, which would be inconsistent with traditional foundations. Due to this concern, it is recommended that, rather than constructing a new brick skirt that wraps around the exterior of the piers, it is most appropriate to fill in the gaps between the piers with matching brick and mortar. The applicant also requests to cover the existing concrete front porch steps with brick in order to match the proposed brick foundation. According to the applicant, there is an existing gap between the concrete steps and porch; thus by bricking over the steps, the applicant can address this hazard. The color and dimensions of the new brick are proposed to match the existing red brick utilized on the piers as closely as possible. Brick porch steps are present throughout the Historic District and are particularly common on Vernacular structures. Ms. Thurston noted that the foundation and modified stairs will require a building permit, thus they must also comply with the Uniform Statewide Building Code. 7 Ms. Thurston stated that based on the previous findings-of-fact, staff recommends approval of the following actions requested by Certificate of Appropriateness, HLC2017-017, with the conditions noted in the staff report. 1. Replacement of the asphalt shingle roof with Tamko architectural shingle roof in Virginia Slate. 2. Removal of metal skirting and infill of the masonry piers with matching brick and mortar. 3. Covering of the existing concrete steps with matching brick and mortar. 4. Replacement of wood 6/6 windows with vinyl 6/6 replacement windows on the rear of the structure only. Based on the previous findings-of-fact, staff recommends denial of the following action requested by Certificate of Appropriateness, HLC2017-017: 1. Replace the preexisting wood windows on the front and sides of the structure with 6/6 double-hung, vinyl windows. The public hearing was opened and speaking in favor of the application was Mr. Dwight Graves, property owner. Mr. Graves stated that he did not know the home was in the historic district when he brought it and that he wanted to fix the roof and the windows quickly to secure the property. Mr. Graves stated that he did talk with city officials and expressed his belief that most of the things presented are in compliance with the Guidelines other than the windows. He asked that the Commission consider approving his windows as they are. There being no more speakers in favor or in opposition, the public hearing was closed. 8 The Commission discussed previous decisions in regard to replacement windows in the District, noting that vinyl windows have not been allowed except in cases where they were not visible from a right-of-way. Chairman Hicks noted that previous approvals have also required muntins to be on the outside of the glass in replacement windows. The Commission then questioned the applicant as to why this request was made after-the-fact since he was aware that a COA was necessary before the work was completed. Following this discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner Hobbs to approve staff’s recommendation as presented. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Coley and passed by a recorded vote of 6-1, with Commissioner Turner voting in opposition. REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS HLC2017-019, submitted by David Strauss, agent for J Eure Properties, Inc., property owner, for the repair of a collapsed portion of a structure and the removal of an existing garage door on property located at 104 Pine Street, Zoning Map 34G17, Block A, Parcels 155. 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 next item of business was introduced by the Chairman, followed by a staff report by Kevin Wyne, Principal Planner. Mr. Wyne stated that the subject property is situated at the northern boundary of the Historic Conservation Overlay District within the W. Washington Street Expansion Area of the Suffolk District Expansion (2004). This area is generally comprised of the commercial parcels on the north and south sides of West Washington Street between Clay and North Streets. The property is zoned CBD, Central Business District and the building serves as a storage warehouse at its rear portion and a hair salon and shoe repair shop at its front. Mr. Wyne stated that the applicant is requesting four separate actions that 9 stem from a collapse of the rear portion of the building which recently took place. In an effort to minimize damage to the remaining portions of the structure, the remaining unstable portions where demolished shortly after the collapse. The applicant’s proposal includes repair of a stuccoed wall at the rear of the structure, repairing the flat roof in-kind where necessary, installation of a 12’ x 10’ garage door on the repaired rear wall, and removal of an existing 12’x10’ garage door opening on Pine Street which will be filled with brick. While a contributing structure, being erected circa 1920, the structure has lost some of its architectural integrity through previous alterations, specifically through the removal of windows on its Pine Street elevation and the installation of modern garage door openings on this same elevation. The repaired wall will replace the old rear elevation wall that collapsed. The applicant proposes to utilize 12” concrete masonry unit block in place of the brick that was previously in place. The concrete block will be covered in its entirety utilizing stucco, thus the block itself will not be visible. Mr. Wyne explained that the proposed stucco finish allows for the use of block to be justified in this case while also complying with the district regulations. The existing roof is flat and it is not visible from the right-of-way as it is concealed by the structure’s stepped parapet. The proposed wall repair will continue to conceal the roof from view utilizing a similar parapet; however, the roof will be repaired in kind utilizing materials that will match the existing roof. While the repaired roof will not be visible, the repaired roof 10 will employ the guidance in the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation pertaining to roof repair and replacement. Mr. Wyne stated that another element of this application is the relocation of the 12’ x 10’ garage door opening from the Pine Street elevation to the rear elevation. The opening left by the removal of the garage door on the Pine Street elevation will be filled with brick. The infill material will allow for evidence of an opening to exist while using the brick to nicely complement and blend with the historic brick utilized on this façade. While the new garage door will be modern, it will match the existing door on the Pine Street elevation and its location on the rear of the building will offer less visibility from Pine Street, as it will only visible from the north approach on Pine Street travelling south. This arrangement offers an improvement upon having the door visible to all travelers on Pine Street, and thus, should be encouraged. After evaluation, staff recommends approval of the following actions requested by Certificate of Appropriateness, HLC-2017-019, with the conditions noted in staff’s report. 1. A new rear concrete masonry unit block wall will be constructed and stuccoed to match the original rear elevation prior to its collapse. 2. The existing flat roof will be repaired where necessary to match the existing roof utilizing black adhesive tar, consisting of non-fibrous and cellulose fiber materials. 3. A 12’ x 10’ garage door opening, similar to the existing garage door opening on the Pine Street elevation, will be installed on the rear wall. The opening will house a 12’ 11  x 10’ metal garage door, white in color that will match the existing garage door on the Pine Street elevation slated for removal. 4. The removal of an existing garage door on the Pine Street elevation. The garage door opening will be filled with brick which will match that of the material used to fill the two window openings on the Pine Street that have been removed in the past. The public hearing was opened and there being no speakers in favor or opposition, the public hearing was closed. After brief discussion by the Commission in regard to the metal garage door, a motion was made by Commissioner Draper to approve staff’s recommendation as presented. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Turner and passed by a recorded vote of 7-0. New Business: Enforcement Update Donald Bennett, (Planning & Community Development) reported on the following properties: 210 Bank Street – Property granted extension until November 30, 2017 221 Bank Street – Court case continued until December 7, 2017 118 Pinner Street – Court case continued January 4, 2018 215 Grace Street – Court case closed, code violations corrected 121 Pinner Street – Summons issued for January 4, 2018 221 Pinner Street – Property fined for retaining wall on November 2, 2017 209 Pearl Street – Granted extension until November 10, 2017 12 New Business: Zoning Update Ricky Sample, (Planning & Community Development) reported on the following properties: 181 N. Main Street – Board of Zoning appeal pending 222 Pinner Street – Property owner fined in court on November 2, 2017 302 Bank Street – Property owner fined in court on November 2, 2017 156 W. Washington Street – Certificate of Appropriateness obtained 216 Grace Street – Court case continued until January 4, 2018 Ms. Jones provided a letter to the Commissioners and stated that the letter was mailed out to property owners informing them that their property is in the historic district and asked for feedback. There was a discussion by the Commission that voiced concern regarding the overall process of notification to property owners who may purchase homes in the historic district and asked for ways to help citizens maintain the historic value of their properties. The Commission asked Staff to look into a fund relief program for the historic district. Ms. Jones stated that the façade grant still does exist but with limited funding and that the City Assessor’s abatement program is available as well as state and federal tax credits for the benefit of property owners in the historic district. Chairman Hicks stated that the Commission’s duty is to serve as stewards of the community and Deputy City Attorney Carter stated that the burden is on the buyer to find out if they are in the historic district and to be aware of all the requirements within their district. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. 13  HISTORIC LANDMARKS COMMISSION Motion: Motion: To Approve To Approve Application Application 1st: Hobbs 1st: Draper 2nd: Coley 2nd: Turner November 9, 2017 ATTENDANCE HC-2017-017 HLC-2017-019 VOTE: 6-1 VOTE: 7-0 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT ABSENT YES NO YES NO Boyette, Walter: Vice-Chairman X Coley, Susan M. X X X Darden Mary Austin, X X X Draper, Merritt X X X Hicks, Randy: Chairman X X X Hobbs, Oliver X X X King, Edward L. X X X Turner, Vivian X X 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: Amy Thurston, Planner I Date: December 14, 2017 Subject: REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS HLC2017-021, submitted by Jeffrey Townsend, property owner, for exterior alterations (transom windows) at property located at 178 East Washington Street. The property is further identified as Zoning Map 34G18, Block (6), Parcel 5, Suffolk Voting Borough, zoned CBD, Central Business District, and HC, Historic Conservation Overlay District. STAFF REPORT Overview of the Subject Property and Surrounding Area The subject property is located on East Washington Street between Commerce Street and Franklin Street, thus it is part of the East Washington Street Historic District of the Suffolk Historic Conservation Overlay District. According to the National Register of Historic Places Inventory, the most common building form noted in this district is brick-fronted Italianate or Vernacular style commercial structures. These commercial structures usually consist of large show windows and flat roofs, many of which have ornate parapets and central recessed entranceways. According to the National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form, the subject property is a contributing one-story commercial building that was constructed between 1926 and 1940. This building is described as having a stretcher bond brick structural system and a flat roof with simple parapet. In the past, the front façade of the building was inappropriately modified to conceal the original wooden transom windows with vinyl siding; this is the area under review for the current COA application. Case History At the September 14, 2017, meeting of the Historic Landmarks Commission, request for Certificate of Appropriateness HC-2017-014 was approved to allow several exterior changes to the property which did not include modifications to the nonconforming vinyl siding on the front HLC2017-021 December 14, 2017 Page 2 of the structure. The approved actions from HC-2017-014 include: construction of a new flat roof and replacement of metal coping in-kind, repointing of brick and installation of a metal gutter, vinyl clad windows, and an aluminum door on the rear of the building, as well as installation of an aluminum storefront system and architectural stone skirting on the front façade. As stated on all Certificates of Appropriateness, any additional improvements shall require a COA and all required permits shall be obtained from the City of Suffolk. On October 25, 2017, the property owner informed staff that the preexisting nonconforming vinyl siding and original wooden transom windows that were hidden behind the vinyl were removed without the approval of a COA. Staff informed the owner that a new after-the-fact application would be necessary to review the proposed modifications which were not approved by HC-2017-014. Public Notice Public notice of this meeting was published in the newspaper and notices were mailed to adjacent property owners. Proposed Actions The applicant’s request consists of the following actions: 1. Remove the preexisting nonconforming vinyl siding and original wooden transom windows that were previously hidden from street view (after-the-fact). 2. Replace the original wooden transom windows with aluminum transom windows to consist of the same layout, dimensions, muntin pattern, and profile as the original windows. 3. Fill in the area between the ground floor storefront windows and transom windows with beige aluminum trim coil. Condition Statement In accordance with Chapter 4, Sections C and F of the Historic District Design Guidelines, Suffolk Glass and Aluminum submitted a condition statement in support of this application. Based on their field assessment, Suffolk Glass determined that the original wooden transom windows were rotten beyond repair and require complete replacement. Detailed photographs were not provided to indicate that the windows had suffered substantial rot and were in disrepair. Surrounding Characteristics As stated, the subject property is located within the East Washington Street boundary expansion. The surrounding properties consist of contributing commercial buildings constructed in the early 1900’s. A detailed description of adjacent and nearby properties is provided below. Please note that the National Register of Historic Places Nomination Forms do not include descriptions with regard to transom windows. 100 Commerce Street – One-story contributing commercial building constructed between 1926 and 1940 with a stretcher bond brick structural system and a flat roof with parapet. HLC2017-021 December 14, 2017 Page 3 174 East Washington Street– One-story contributing commercial building constructed between 1926 and 1940 with a stretcher bond brick structural system and a flat roof with parapet. 180 East Washington Street– Two-story contributing commercial building constructed between 1920 and 1925 with a stretcher bond brick structural system and a flat roof with parapet. 186 East Washington Street– Contributing two-story Colonial Revival commercial building constructed circa 1920 with a frame structural system and 7-course American Bond Brick Veneer. 173-177 East Washington Street– Contributing two-story Vernacular commercial building constructed between 1920 and 1925 with an American Bond Brick Structural System and shed roof. 179 East Washington Street– Contributing two-story commercial building constructed between 1920-1925 with a Stretcher Bond Brick Structural System and a flat roof with parapet. Site Modifications No site modifications are proposed with this application. Applicable Regulations A. Suffolk Historic District Design Guidelines Chapter 4, Section C. Window Openings: • Windows and door openings are a major character and style-determining feature of an historic building. These elements visually 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.). Chapter 4, Section C.3. Guidelines for Window Preservation: • 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 match the original in appearance, detail, material, profile, and overall size as closely as possible. • Maintain the Original Window Patterns and Consistency of Window Types: Do not change the number, location, size, or glazing pattern of windows. Maintain window types that reflect those types found in the district. • Preserve Historic Articulation of Window Openings: Preserve the articulation of openings as they relate to historic buildings. Frames should be recessed in masonry openings and raised frames should be used on wood buildings. HLC2017-021 December 14, 2017 Page 4 • New Window Materials: Evaluate the acceptability of replacement windows using the following criteria: kind and texture of materials; architectural/historical compatibility; comparison to original window profile; level of significance of original windows to the architectural style of the building; and material performance and durability. • Conditions Statement: A signed statement, with exhibits, from a licensed general is required as supporting documentation for any Certificate of Appropriateness. Chapter 4, Section E.3.b. Guidelines for Window and Door Trim: • Original trim should, to the maximum extent possible, be maintained and preserved. When deterioration of historic trim necessitates replacement, the trim should be replaced with similar materials to match the size, finish and style of the original trim and profile. • Rot-resistant materials should be used to replace historic wood trim if the original materials need to be replaced. Chapter 4, Section F.2.b. Guidelines for Wood Materials • 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. • 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 general is required as supporting documentation for any Certificate of Appropriateness. Chapter 6, Section C.2. Guidelines for Mercantile Buildings: • Rehabilitate Historic Building Facades: Rehabilitation may require the careful removal of alterations and additions which have covered over the facade's character-defining architectural elements. New construction may be required to restore missing, heavily damaged or altered elements. • Preserve and Rehabilitate Façade Materials: Preserve and rehabilitate the original historic façade materials. • Preserve and Rehabilitate Windows and Doors: Preserve and rehabilitate original window/door openings, window sashes, window/door muntin patterns and window/door trim to maintain and strengthen not only the building's historic character but also that of the surrounding area as well. Where original windows and doors must be replaced due to deterioration or damage, match their original sizes, patterns and design. B. Secretary of the Interior Standards The Secretary of the Interior Standards, which are included in Appendix A of the Historic Guidelines, encourage the repair and preservation of existing historic materials rather than replacement. Windows are noted as being an important element in defining the overall historic character of a building; therefore, removing or radically changing windows should be avoided. Furthermore, do not change the appearance of windows through the use of inappropriate designs, materials, finishes, or colors which noticeably change the sash, depth of reveal, and muntin HLC2017-021 December 14, 2017 Page 5 configuration; the reflectivity and color of the glazing; or the appearance of the frame. Replace windows in-kind 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 that are deteriorated beyond repair, then a compatible substitute material may be considered. Staff Analysis The Historic District Design Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior Standards state that windows should only be replaced when they are missing or beyond repair. Reconstruction should be based on physical evidence or old photographs, when available. Replacement windows should match the original in appearance, detail, material, profile, and overall size as closely as possible. The number, location, size or glazing pattern of windows should not be changed. Specific guidance is also provided for the preservation and replacement of wood materials; replacement materials should match the original in material and design or use substitute materials that convey the same visual appearance. In accordance with Section F of the Guidelines, 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 material will produce the overall character, appearance, and performance. The applicant proposes to remove the preexisting nonconforming vinyl siding and original wooden transom windows and replace them with silver aluminum transom windows. In accordance with Chapter 4, Sections C and F of the Design Guidelines, Suffolk Glass and Aluminum submitted a condition statement in support of this application. Based on their field assessment, Suffolk Glass determined that the original wooden transom windows were rotten beyond repair and require complete replacement. The proposed design of the replacement windows is based on physical and pictorial evidence. The design consists of utilizing the original window opening, layout, pattern (200” x 40” in area divided into 10 equal sections), profile, and muntin configuration. Since the preexisting window frames had simple lines as opposed to intricate trim used on other structures in the district, the frames can be replicated using aluminum. While the replacement windows are proposed to be constructed of silver aluminum frames instead of wood, if the aluminum is painted with an appropriate color it will produce the same finish and overall appearance as the original wooden transom windows. Overall, the proposed replacement windows, if painted, will bring the building back to its historical appearance as they will profile the same as the original windows and frames despite the change in material. The area on the front façade between the ground floor storefront windows and the transom windows is currently devoid of any exterior siding material. There is no record of what material previously existed in this location prior to the installation of vinyl; however, wood would likely have been the material used at the time the building was constructed. The applicant has proposed to fill in this area using beige aluminum trim coil. Other similar commercial storefronts in the Historic District that have a distinct separation between the storefront windows and transom windows utilize wood trim in this area of their facades. Aluminum trim coil does not produce a similar profile, appearance, nor evoke the same character that wood trim produces; thus, it does not comply with Section F.2.b. of the Design Guidelines. Additionally, the use of aluminum trim coil in place of wood trim would not be in-keeping with surrounding properties; therefore, painted wood trim is recommended to be utilized. HLC2017-021 December 14, 2017 Page 6 Summary and Recommendations Based on the previous findings-of-fact, staff recommends approval of the following actions requested by Certificate of Appropriateness, HLC2017-021, with the conditions noted below: 1. After-the-fact removal of the preexisting nonconforming vinyl siding and original wooden transom windows. 2. Install replacement aluminum transom windows that match the original transom windows in size, layout, pattern, dimensions, muntin configuration, and profile. Paint the aluminum windows utilizing an appropriate beige color from one of the approved paint palettes. 3. Fill in the area between the ground floor storefront windows and transom windows with painted wood trim utilizing an appropriate beige color from one of the approved paint palettes. 4. Any additional improvements shall require a Certificate of Appropriateness. 5. All required permits shall be obtained from the City of Suffolk. Attachments cc: Jeffrey Townsend, property owner HLC2017-021 ZONING / LAND USE MAP HLC2017-021 RCE COMME KLIN FRA N 34G18(6)*5 CBD WASH IN GTON s HLC2017-021, 178 East Washington Street Subject property prior to removal of vinyl area covering transom windows: Subject property after removal of vinyl area which exposed original wooden transom windows: 1 HLC2017-021, 178 East Washington Street Subject property after removal of original transom windows without a COA: Proposed design of replacement transom windows provided by Suffolk Glass, Inc.: 2 HLC2017-021, 178 East Washington Street The gap between the storefront windows on the ground floor and the bottom of the transom windows is proposed to be filled in utilizing aluminum trim coil in a beige color as shown below: Here is an example of aluminum trim coil after installation on: 3 HLC2017-021, 178 East Washington Street Street views of surrounding area: 4 HLC2017-021, 178 East Washington Street Examples of transom windows in the Historic District: 5 HLC2017-021, 178 East Washington Street 6  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 14, 2017 Subject: REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS HLC-2017-022, submitted by Missi Cohn, agent for ForKids, property owner, for exterior alterations on property located at 119 W. Constance Road, Zoning Map 34G11 (1), Parcel R*2A. 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 Overview of the Subject Property and Surrounding Area The subject property is situated at the northern end of the Historic Conservation Overlay District but just outside the North Main Street Extension (1998) of the Original Suffolk National Register Historic District, which ends on the south side of East Constance Road at the former Courthouse. The non-contributing structure was built in 1996 and is located in close proximity (to the west across North Main Street) to Constant’s Wharf and the former Courthouse building (currently the Visitor’s Center). The subject property is located in the North Main Street Entry Corridor, which is characterized by a mix of commercial and residential structures. The location is significant because of its proximity to the place where the City was founded and contains prominent and early buildings. The area to the south of the subject property is comprised mainly of small to mid-sized houses, many from the 1830s and 1840s, with additional buildings from the Victorian period after the Civil War and others from the turn of the century. There are also a few modern one-story commercial and residential structures. The most prominent architectural examples are two (2) Greek Revival structures built circa 1838-39, the Nansemond County Courthouse at 524 North Main Street at its intersection with Constance Road, and the adjacent Riddick’s Folly at 510 North Main Street. To the immediate north and east of the property are existing commercial buildings that do not HLC-2017-022 December 14, 2017 Page 2 contribute to the district. Immediately to the west across Church Street is a paved parking lot. Case History The building was constructed in 1996 as a video store, prior to the area’s inclusion into the Historic Conservation Overlay District. In 2003, the building became Kelly’s Tavern and received Certificate of Appropriateness HC2003-65, which allowed for various exterior improvements related to the rebranding of the commercial structure to the Kelly’s Tavern restaurant. Public Notice Public notice of this meeting was published in the newspaper and notices were mailed to adjacent property owners. Proposed Actions The applicant is requesting exterior changes that will result in a façade that is more consistent with the property owner’s branding. These changes include the following: 1. Removal of the current signage and gooseneck lights at the entryway that are used to light the current signage. 2. Installation of two (2) indirectly halo lit signs, not to exceed 42 square feet, one (1) each on the north and east elevations above the primary entrance. 3. Removal of four (4) of the existing columns located at the entry. The remaining three (3) columns will be painted green in color, CW510 Everard House Willow from the Pratt & Lambert Williamsburg Color Collection Palette. 4. The replacement of the existing storefront windows and doors with new aluminum storefront finished in bronze as necessary on all elevations. 5. The painting of the sconces CW610 Stencil Square Wallpaper Blue from the Pratt & Lambert Williamsburg Color Collection Palette. 6. The replacement of the existing green awnings with new awnings of a color consistent with CW610 Stencil Square Wallpaper Blue from the Pratt & Lambert Williamsburg Color Collection Palette. 7. The removal of the outdoor patio awning and installation of a shade sail that will be a color consistent with CW510 Everard House Willow from the Pratt & Lambert Williamsburg Color Collection Palette. 8. Removal of the existing fence that encloses the outdoor patio area. 9. The installation of a new 48” tall, black aluminum fence that will enclose the outdoor patio area and the grass area between the building and Church Street. A play area will be constructed within this fenced area. 10. The removal of three (3) existing crape myrtle trees and the installation of landscaping between the new 48” tall fence and Church Street. 11. The installation of one (1) new glass door and two (2) aluminum windows on the Church Street elevation. 12. The installation of one (1) glass door and the installation of a new aluminum window HLC-2017-022 December 14, 2017 Page 3 on the south elevation. 13. The painting of an existing door and installation of an awning on the south elevation, both of a color consistent with CW610 Stencil Square Wallpaper Blue from the Pratt & Lambert Williamsburg Color Collection Palette. 14. The painting of an existing area of stucco on the east elevation to be painted CW108 Benjamin Powell House Red from the Pratt & Lambert Williamsburg Color Collection Palette. Surrounding Characteristics A detailed description of adjacent and nearby properties is provided below. 510 North Main Street – Riddick’s Folly. A Greek Revival detached house constructed in 1838-39. The brick (Flemish bond) structure is 2 ½ stories, five bays and has a parapet roof with gable end chimneys. The structure is listed individually on the National Register. 515 North Main Street – A modern, non-contributing drug store. 524 North Main Street – The former Nansemond County Courthouse building was built in the Greek Revival style between 1838-39. The brick structure is two stories and is three bays wide by four bays deep. The structure has a gable roof, tetrastyle Doric portico and 12/12 sash windows. The structure has a 1960’s rear addition. 601 North Main Street – A modern, non-contributing fast food restaurant. 633 North Main Street – A modern, non-contributing hotel. 100 East Constance Road – A non-contributing, modern hotel. 118 West Constance Road – A non-contributing, modern drug store. 108 Western Avenue – A modern single family dwelling. 112 Western Avenue – A single story residential vernacular structure that currently houses a gravestone business. Applicable Regulations A. Suffolk Historic District Design Guidelines 1. Chapter 1, Section D, Historic Entry Corridors: The Historic Entry Corridors are the commercial areas along West Washington Street and North Main Street between the Historic Urban Core and the outer edge of the Historic District. These areas are less urban in character with lower buildings, more open space between buildings and an intermixing of residential and commercial buildings along the street. HLC-2017-022 December 14, 2017 Page 4 2. Chapter 1, Section E, Categories of Significance within the Historic Conservation Overlay District: Not all structures in a Historic Conservation Overlay District are historic. These non-historic structures are termed non-contributing structures and are defined as structures that were either built less than 50 years ago, or structures that have been changed to such a degree that they no longer retain the integrity of their original design or are in such a poor state of repair that their future retention is in doubt. The Suffolk Historic Conservation Overlay District contains a number of noncontributing structures; the majority of these are recent commercial structures. While many are constructed of brick, the overall design of these buildings is inappropriate in the local historic district. Reasons for this inappropriateness include one-story construction with flat roofs and minimal decorative detail, and the use of front and side parking lots which intrude on the historic streetscape of the area. If the trend toward this type of new construction continues, the integrity of the Historic Conservation Overlay District’s corridors could be severely compromised. 3. Chapter 6, Section A.2, Historic Entry Corridors: The preservation of the Historic Entry Corridors' character shall be achieved through the impaction of the following goals: a. Rehabilitation of historic building façades b. Adherence to design standards for new construction which respects the historic urban character of the area c. Strengthening of the street edges d. Installation of enhancements to the pedestrian environment e. Reuse of abandoned or underutilized buildings 4. Chapter 6, Section E.1, Background: The design of commercial signage within the Historic Conservation Overlay District is important in order to achieve an appropriate scale, location, appearance and color scheme, which does not detract from the district's appearance and character while allowing for business's identification. Signs should be fabricated from traditional materials such as wood and metal with painted finishes. Plastic and foam sign-boards are not to be used. Lettering shall be historic in appearance such as paint applied, vinyl appliqué, or applied in three-dimensional relief. B. Secretary of the Interior Standards The Secretary of the Interior does not provide specific guidelines for alterations to non- contributing structures within historic districts. Staff Analysis The applicant is proposing a number of exterior changes to an existing non-contributing commercial structure located within the Historic Conservation Overlay District near the intersection of Constance Road and N. Main Street. The building was constructed in 1996 and is prominently located near a key intersection within the northern Historic Entry Corridor and is located in close proximity to two (2) prominent structures and one (1) prominent site. These prominent historical sites include Riddick’s Folly, the former Nansemond County Courthouse, HLC-2017-022 December 14, 2017 Page 5 and Constant’s Wharf, the site of first settlement in Suffolk. The most prominent alterations include the installation of two (2) indirectly illuminated wall signs that will replace the existing signs, the removal of four (4) of seven (7) existing columns at the building’s entrance, the replacement of the existing storefront on the north and east elevations, the installation of new storefront doors and windows on the west and south elevations, and the installation of a fence and landscaping that will create an outdoor play area between Church Street and the building’s south elevation. The two (2) new wall signs will replace two (2) existing wall signs located on the north and east elevations of the building on the entry canopy. The signs are proposed to be a maximum of 42 square feet in size and be indirectly lit, utilizing a light halo around the letters. The proposed signs are consistent with the requirements outlined in Chapter 6, Section E.2 of the Historic District Design Guidelines, which states “Lighting of signage must be indirect. Signs which are internally illuminated are prohibited.” The existing gooseneck lights, that are used to illuminate the existing signage, will be removed. The sign lettering will be consistent with CW610 Stencil Square Wallpaper Blue and the detail under the copy will be consistent with CW510 Everard House Willow both from the Pratt & Lambert Williamsburg Color Collection Palette. As proposed, staff finds the proposed signs appropriate and consistent with the Historic District Design Guidelines. Also, as a part of this application, the applicant proposes replacing the existing storefront windows and doors at the main entryway with a new aluminum storefront finished in bronze. The new storefront will not significantly differ from the existing storefront and will allow the applicant a storefront that they find to be more compatible with their branding. The current green awning will be replaced with a blue awning (consistent with CW610 Stencil Square Wallpaper Blue) to align with the color package selected by the applicant. Also at the main entryway, the applicant proposes to remove four (4) of the seven (7) existing columns. When installed these columns were designed to match the adjacent Rite Aid building and complement the columns found on the nearby Nansemond County Courthouse. Only three (3) of these columns are structurally necessary and as such, the removal of the unneeded columns will not be a detriment to the building or the district. Additional improvements on the north, east, and west elevations include the painting of the existing sconces and backboard trim. Both the sconces and backboard trim will be painted CW610 Stencil Square Wallpaper Blue from the Pratt & Lambert Williamsburg Color Collection Palette. Located on the north elevation is an outdoor patio that is presently covered with a green awning. This awning is slated for replacement with a cloth shade sail, similar to the shade sail approved on a contributing structure located 212 E. Washington Street (Brick and Mortar Brewing) as a part of exterior changes within Certificate of Appropriateness HC2017-00023. The shade sail will be green in color and consistent with CW510 Everard House Willow from the Pratt & Lambert Williamsburg Color Collection Palette. In addition to the replacement of existing storefront on the north and east elevations, new glass doors and aluminum windows that will match the replacement storefront, will be installed on the west and south elevations. Aside from two (2) utility doors, these elevations in their current form do not contain any window or door openings. On the south elevation, one (1) of the utility doors HLC-2017-022 December 14, 2017 Page 6 will be replaced with a glass door, and a fixed pane window will be installed. The installation of window and door openings on this elevation will offer some welcomed fenestration. On the west elevation (Church Street) a new aluminum window and door combination will be installed along with two additional fixed pane windows, all of which will work to help break up this currently blank façade. While the replacement storefront does not provide a significant change from the current storefront, the newly installed storefront in areas that currently lack openings are encouraged when consistent with materials and architectural details already in use, as is true in this case. As such, this improvement is supported by the Historic District Design Guidelines. The last major element of this application includes landscape improvements that will include the construction of a 48” tall, black, aluminum fence and the construction of a play area between the west elevation and Church Street. The 48” fence will wrap around the building and extend from the existing patio area on the north elevation around to the west elevation. The fence will enclose an approximate area of 100’ x 30’, which will be utilized as a play area. Presently, this area consists of grass and other vegetation. Three (3) large trees in this area will remain and three (3) crape myrtles will be removed. The removed crape myrtles will be replaced by shrubs and other vegetation that will be reviewed separately for appropriateness with the Unified Development Ordinance’s (UDO) landscape standards. The newly created play area will bring the use to the street edge, which is preferred within urban environments and in this case, would be appropriate. Summary and Recommendations Based on the above findings-of-fact, staff recommends approval of the following completed actions requested by Certificate of Appropriateness, HLC2017-022, with the conditions noted below: 1. Removal of the current signage and gooseneck lights at the entryway that are used to light the current signage. 2. Installation of two (2) indirectly halo lit signs, not to exceed 42 square feet, one (1) each on the north and east elevations above the primary entrance. 3. Removal of four (4) of the existing columns located at the entry. The remaining three (3) columns will be painted green in color, CW510 Everard House Willow from the Pratt & Lambert Williamsburg Color Collection Palette. 4. The replacement of the existing storefront windows and doors with new aluminum storefront finished in bronze as necessary on all elevations. 5. The painting of the sconces CW610 Stencil Square Wallpaper Blue from the Pratt & Lambert Williamsburg Color Collection Palette. 6. The replacement of the existing green awnings with new awnings of a color consistent with CW610 Stencil Square Wallpaper Blue from the Pratt & Lambert Williamsburg Color Collection Palette. 7. The removal of the outdoor patio awning and installation of a shade sail that will be a color consistent with CW510 Everard House Willow from the Pratt & Lambert Williamsburg Color Collection Palette. 8. Removal of the existing fence that encloses the outdoor patio area. 9. The installation of a new 48” tall, black aluminum fence that will enclose the outdoor patio area and the grass area between the building and Church Street. A play area will HLC-2017-022 December 14, 2017 Page 7 be constructed within this fenced area. 10. The removal of three (3) existing crape myrtle trees and the installation of landscaping between the new 48” tall fence and Church Street. 11. The installation of one (1) new glass door and two (2) aluminum windows on the Church Street elevation. 12. The installation of one (1) glass door and the installation of a new aluminum window on the south elevation. 13. The painting of an existing door and installation of an awning on the south elevation, both of a color consistent with CW610 Stencil Square Wallpaper Blue from the Pratt & Lambert Williamsburg Color Collection Palette. 14. The painting of an existing area of stucco on the east elevation to be painted CW108 Benjamin Powell House Red from the Pratt & Lambert Williamsburg Color Collection Palette. Attachments cc: Missi Cohn, Agent HLC2017-022  ZONING / LAND USE MAP HLC2017-022 O-I B-2 ON LN JOHNS IN ST N MA RD TANCE NS E CO RD NCE TA NS CO CBD W 34G11(1)*R*2A LN MVILLE DU WESTERN AVE T RU CH S s CHUR DAY ST  HLC2017-022 Selected Paint Colors HLC2017-022 119 W. Constance Street, North Elevation HLC2017-022 119 W. Constance Street, East Elevation HLC2017-022 119 W. Constance Street, South Elevation HLC2017-022 119 W. Constance Street, West Elevation Zoning Case Activity Report December 2017 PROPERTY OWNER(s) LOCATION VIOLATION(s) JUDGEMENT INSPECTOR Zoning- Changing Windows without a Suffolk Tower Holdings LLC 181 N Main St Appeal BZA Ricky COA Raven P. Coston 222 Pinner St Zoning-Changing windows without a COA NOV/ COA Pending Matt Greenhouse Properties, LLC 500 W Washington St Zoning-Changing windows without a COA NOV/ COA Pending Matt Zoning-Established a church no 412 N Main, LLC 412 N Main St NOV/ COA Pending Matt COA/permit Referred to court/no Shore Breeze, LLC/ Lashawn Howard 216 Grace St Zoning-Exceeding Scope of COA Matt service Gregory Mitchell 131 Clay St Zoning- Installed Roof with no COA NOV Matt