Historic Landmarks Commission Packets

City of Suffolk HISTORIC LANDMARKS COMMISSION July 12, 2018 THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE HISTORIC LANDMARKS COMMISSION WILL BE HELD AT 9:00 A.M. IN CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY HALL BUILDING Note: If You Cannot Attend This Meeting, Please Notify the Planning Division by 12:00 Noon, Wednesday, July 11, 2018 (757) 514-4060 PREPARED BY THE CITY OF SUFFOLK DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF PLANNING  AGENDA Historic Landmarks Commission Meeting Thursday, July 12, 2018 9:00 a.m. I. Call to Order: Chairman II. Roll Call III. Approval of the Minutes IV. New Business 1. Election of Officers 2. REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS HLC2018-00023, submitted by Randy McReynolds, agent, on behalf of Esppar, LLC, property owner, for parking lot improvements and fencing for properties located at 119, 121, and 125 East Washington Street. The properties are further identified as Zoning Map 34G18, Block A, Parcel 285, Suffolk Voting Borough, zoned CBD, Central Business District, and HC, Historic Conservation Overlay District. V. Old Business VI. Staff Reports 1. Enforcement Updates a. Property Maintenance Official b. Zoning 2. Administrative Approvals VII. Adjournment  MINUTES HISTORIC LANDMARKS COMMISSION June 14, 2018 9:00 A.M. The regular meeting of the Historic Landmarks Commission was held on Thursday, June 14, 2018, at 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 Claire Jones, Secretary Mary Austin Darden William Hutchings, Deputy City Attorney Merritt Draper Kevin Wyne, Principal Planner Oliver Hobbs Amy Thurston, Planner I Edward King Kimberly Allen, Planning Technician Larry Riddick Vivian Turner The meeting was called to order by Vice-Chairman Hobbs. The roll was called by Ms. Jones and the Vice-Chairman was informed that a quorum was present. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The minutes of the previous meeting were approved as presented. NEW BUSINESS: REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS HLC2018-00016, submitted by Randolph and Mary Ellen Copeland, applicants, for exterior alterations to property located at 423 West Washington Street. The property is further identified as Zoning Map 34G17, Block A, Parcel 192A+, Suffolk Voting Borough, zoned CBD, Central Business District, and HC, Historic Conservation Overlay District. The first item of business was introduced by the Vice-Chairman, followed by a staff report from Amy Thurston, Planner I. Ms. Thurston stated the subject property is located within the 2004 Historic District Expansion, which is mostly comprised of one and two-story twentieth century commercial buildings and historically contained a number of automobile-related buildings dating from the 1920s through the 1950s. According to the National Register of Historic Places, the subject property was constructed circa 1930 and was formerly the Godwin Motors Parts Department. The building features yellow brick along the front, red brick along the sides and rear, double storefronts with recessed entryways and a parapet roofline. This building originally connected to the adjacent building, 425 West Washington Street, which functioned as the Godwin Motors dealership. Ms. Thurston noted that the subject property is located on West Washington Street, one of the two most prominent streets in the Suffolk Historic Conservation Overlay District. In addition, due to the adjacent vacant properties to the east, the east façade of the building is highly visible to vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Therefore, any changes made to the subject property will have a substantial impact on the District as a whole. The first part of the applicant’s request is to paint the wood covering the existing transom windows on the front and east façades and the divided light windows on the east façade using a beige color. Currently, the transoms are entirely covered with wood and roughly one-third of the divided light windows remain exposed. No COA is on file which allowed these windows to be covered and this may have occurred prior to this property being incorporated into the Historic District in 2004. Based on their style and appearance, it is believed that the divided light windows may date back fifty years or more. If so, these elements, though not original, can be considered contributing historic features in their own right. Careful consideration must be given to not only how the proposed changes will affect the contributing features that have been added over time, but how the proposed changes will impact the building’s overall contributing status to the Historic District. Ms. Thurston noted that covering windows is not supported by the Historic Guidelines, thus it would not be permitted today. Removal of these window coverings is encouraged; however, not required, since they may predate the District. In the event that the applicant finds that the existing wood has deteriorated and repainting will not sufficiently repair the wood, these elements cannot be removed and replaced under District regulations. In this case, the coverings would need to be removed entirely. Secondly, the applicant requests to remove two of the existing divided light windows and surrounding brick on the east façade in order to install two (2) seven (7) foot tall steel “Carriage House Model 303” garage doors. The proposed doors consist of a stained oak finish and spear hinges and pull handles. No windows are proposed as part of the garage doors. Centered above each of the proposed garage doors, the applicant requests to install black gooseneck light fixtures, which is an appropriate style of light fixture that is frequently approved in the Historic District. Guidance pertaining to the replacement or installation of new doors is provided by Chapters 3 and 4 of the Historic District Design Guidelines. Doors are a major character and style-determining feature of a historic building and changing the number, location, and size of doors should be avoided. The standards also state that consideration should be given to the history, character, and style of the subject building and the context in which it is located. In addition, the Historic District standards state that wood is the most common material used for doors. As outlined in the District regulations and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, reconstruction projects shall be based on physical, documentary, and/or pictorial evidence. The applicant believes that garage doors previously existed on the east elevation of the building based on the mortar joints in this 2 area. While it appears that openings may have existed in this area, no documentary or pictorial evidence was provided with the application. Since historic photographs of the subject building were not available, staff researched other commercial buildings locally and elsewhere in the United States that were constructed during the same era, primarily the 1930s, which were also designed for automobile sales or service uses. Ms. Thurston reviewed examples of similar doors from that era and stated that, based on this research, staff recommends any new garage doors on this property consist of a combination of wood and glass in keeping with the automotive use and the style of the period. Ms. Thurston also noted that this recommendation is consistent with other recent decisions made by the HLC. In conclusion, Ms. Thurston stated that the subject property’s history as part of a motor company in an area that formerly housed other auto uses supports allowing garage doors on the side of the building, provided that they utilize an appropriate combination of wood and glass that honors the building’s original use and similar designs from the era. In regard to painting, staff recommends that the trim on the building and the new garage doors utilize a consistent color to create a cohesive design. In the event that the applicant finds that the existing wood covering the windows has deteriorated and cannot be repainted, these elements cannot be removed and replaced under District regulations. Finally, staff recommends approval of the proposed black gooseneck light fixtures, which are consistent with the building’s architecture and lighting approved elsewhere in the District. The public hearing was opened and Mr. Randy Copeland, prospective buyer of the property, spoke in support of the application. Mr. Copeland noted the suitability of the property to store his vehicles if he is allowed to add the garage doors and stated his concerns with regard to the price for wood doors. Mr. Copeland asked if an alternative to wood doors would be allowed, such as “fire station” doors composed of aluminum with the appearance of wood and including glass windows. There being no other speakers, the public hearing was closed. The Commission discussed the suitability and prevalence of metal garage doors and agreed that the material would be appropriate but the proposed door style would not appropriate for a commercial building. They also agreed that windows are needed. Commissioner Riddick asked the applicant if two doors would be necessary or whether one door would suffice. Mr. Copeland indicated that one would be enough. Commissioner King noted his preference that the wood covering the existing windows be removed. Commission Darden added that the existing material appears to be rotten. After much discussion of the application, the HLC agreed to approve the following actions: • Up to two (2) garage doors may be installed on the east elevation provided that the garage doors utilize an appropriate commercial style and material to be approved by the Administrator; • The color of the garage doors shall match the trim color utilized elsewhere on the building; • The wooden coverings over the transom windows may be painted; and, • The wooden window coverings on the east elevation shall be removed. 3 Commissioner Darden made a motion to approve the above actions. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Turner and approved by a recorded vote of 7-0. REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS HLC2018-00017, submitted by K – Kontractors Development Group, applicant and property owners, for demolition of a shed on property located at 129 Wellons Street, Zoning Map 34G17, Block (A), Parcel 288. The affected area is further identified as being located in the Suffolk Voting Borough, zoned RM, Residential Medium Density and HC, Historic Conservation Overlay District. The second item of business was introduced by the Vice-Chairman, followed by a staff report from Kevin Wyne, Principal Planner. Mr. Wyne stated the subject property is situated within the West End District (2004) of the Suffolk Historic Conservation Overlay District. The property is zoned RM, Residential District and is currently a vacant single family residence. Mr. Wyne noted that, of the 17 residential structures located in the 100 block of Wellons Street, only one property currently includes a contributing accessory structure. With the general lack of contributing accessory structures in the vicinity, it can be determined that accessory structures were not common along the block and are not a central feature of the homes located along Wellons Street during its period of historical significance. The subject property features a contributing structure built between 1900 and 1915. In the home’s rear yard stands a shed, which measures approximately 20’ x 28’. The shed is not noted in the West End District’s National Register nomination; however, based on its design, features, and materials, it has been determined that it is a contributing structure. The applicant requests demolition of the contributing shed and included a contractor’s statement recommending that it be demolished due to its structural unsoundness. Specifically, the statement speaks to the absence of a floor in the building, significant termite and moisture damage to the studs, and a collapsed roof, which would require the replacement of all of the sheathing and over 75% of the structure’s rafters. Mr. Wyne presented photographs showing the damage to the structure and its general lack of visibility from adjacent rights-of-way. Staff analyzed each of the Guidelines governing demolition of structures in the District and, while it is always the preference that contributing structures remain, it is understood that in some cases conditions are present that will not allow for contributing structures to be rehabilitated or preserved. Due to the nature of the structure, the fact that it is well screened from public view, and the fact that the structure itself is not architecturally or historically significant, its demolition would have little to no impact on the character of the district. Additionally, the physical state of the structure may present a hazard to the public as the contractor’s statement has noted significant moisture and termite damage to vital structural elements. As such, staff finds the demolition to be consistent with the guidelines and regulations controlling demolition within the Historic Conservation Overlay District with the conditions noted within Staff’s report. 4 The public hearing was opened and Mr. Steve Eley of the Lakeside Civic League spoke in favor of the application. There being no other speakers, the public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Commissioner Riddick to approve staff’s recommendation as presented. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Draper and approved by a recorded vote of 7-0. OLD BUSINESS: Ms. Jones informed the HLC that an appeal was received in regard to Certificate of Appropriateness application, HLC2018-00014, which requested approval of an after-the-fact roof replacement and change of materials at 131 Clay Street. The request was denied unanimously by the HLC at the May 10, 2018, meeting. Ms. Jones stated that the appeal is expected to be scheduled for the July 18, 2018, City Council meeting. A copy of the staff report and confirmation of the date will be provided to the member of the Historic Landmarks Council members in advance of the meeting. STAFF REPORTS: Enforcement Update Donald Bennett, Property Maintenance Official, reported on the following properties: • 209 Pearl Street – Court Case dismissed, June 7, 2018 • 204 Bank Street – Summons issued, court case scheduled August 2, 2018 • 221 Pinner Street –Court case continued until July 5, 2018 • 118 Pinner Street – Property maintenance violation goes to court on July 5, 2018 • 121 Pinner Street – Reissued letter to new owner on file Zoning Update Larry Dennis, Zoning Inspector, reported that a detailed report would be provided at the July meeting. Administrative Approvals Ms. Jones provided a brief report on the five administrative COAs approved since the last HLC meeting in May and noted that copies of each were provided in the meeting packet. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. 5  HISTORIC LANDMARKS COMMISSION Motion: Motion: To approve with To approve as presented modifications 1st: Darden 1st: Riddick 2nd: Turner 2nd: Draper June 14, 2018 HLC2018-16 HLC2018-17 ATTENDANCE VOTE: 7-0 VOTE: 7-0 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT ABSENT YES NO YES NO Coley, Susan M. X X X Darden, Mary Austin X X X Draper, Merritt X X X Hobbs, Oliver, Vice-Chairman X X X King, Edward L. X X X Riddick, Larry X X X Turner, Vivian X X X  CITY OF SUFFOLK 442 WEST WASHINGTON STREET, POST OFFICE BOX 1858, SUFFOLK, VIRGINIA 23439-1858 PHONE: (757) 514-4060 FAX: (757) 514-4099 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Division of Planning July 5, 2018 Suffolk Historic Landmarks Commission City of Suffolk, Virginia Subject: Election of Officers Dear Commissioners, Please be advised that the annual election of officers will be held at the July 14, 2018, meeting of the Historic Landmarks Commission. As required in the Bylaws, the Commission shall elect the Chairman and Vice Chairman from among the appointed members. Officers serve for a term of one year or until their successors are elected and shall be eligible for reelection. In the past, Commission members have also appointed a staff member from the Division of Planning to serve as Secretary to the Commission at this time. The Secretary serves for a term of one year. If you have any questions in advance of the meeting, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Claire Jones, AICP Secretary, Historic Landmarks Commission  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 II Date: July 12, 2018 Subject: REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS HLC2018- 00023, submitted by Randy McReynolds, agent, on behalf of Esppar, LLC, property owner, for parking lot improvements and fencing for properties located at 119, 121, and 125 East Washington Street. The properties are further identified as Zoning Map 34G18, Block A, Parcel 285, 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 includes three (3) building addresses, 119, 121, and 125 East Washington Street, which are located on one (1) parcel, 34G18(A)*285, that is part of the 2002 East Washington Street Expansion of the Suffolk Historic Conservation Overlay District. According to the National Register of Historic Places Inventory, the most common building form noted in this area is brick-fronted Italianate or Vernacular style commercial structures. These commercial structures usually consist of large show windows and flat roofs, most of which have ornate parapets and central recessed entranceways. According to the National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form, the building located at 119 and 121 East Washington Street is a contributing Vernacular commercial building that was constructed circa 1900-1914. The building features a masonry structural system with a combination of brick veneer and 7-course America bond veneer and a shed style roof. The second building on the subject property, 125 East Washington Street, is listed as a contributing Colonial Revival commercial structure that was constructed circa 1923. This structure consists of a masonry structural system with a combination of brick veneer and 7-course America bond veneer and a shed style roof as well. The rear of the subject property currently contains a gravel parking lot that is accessed from 101 East Washington Street and an unnamed public right-of- way to the rear. Presently, the site does not contain any landscaping or fencing. HLC2018-00023 July 12, 2018 Page 2 Case History In April 2010, the properties located at 119, 121, 123, and 125 East Washington Street were granted an administrative Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for numerous in-kind repairs as follows. 1. Reopen first floor mercantile windows and replace rear door in-kind at 119 East Washington Street. 2. Replace missing glass mercantile window and repair tile in entryway at 121 East Washington Street. 3. Replace wooden door at 123 East Washington Street in-kind. 4. Replace missing glass on first floor mercantile window and reopen second floor windows at 125 East Washington Street. 5. Remove metal cap along parapet walls and repair/replace brick with in-kind materials. 6. Remove existing tin roof and replace with tin roof to be painted silver. In May 2010, the same properties, 119, 121, 123, and 125 East Washington Street, were granted a COA for the following major changes. As noted below, the HLC approved paving of the rear parking lot, which is the part of current request under review. 1. Parge all west-facing walls and rear (south) walls; 2. Remove tin sheaving and re-open sun room on roof at 123 East Washington Street; 3. Remove wood and restore second floor screen porch and reinstall rear wooden stairway in rear at 123 East Washington Street; 4. Uncover and restore second floor windows at 123 East Washington Street; 5. Remove metal door along west wall and restore wooden door at 125 East Washington; 6. Remove brick wall located to the rear of 125 East Washington Street; and 7. Pave the existing gravel parking lot located to the rear of the properties and construct a curb driveway entrance to the adjacent municipal parking lot. The following conditions were approved as part of the 2010 COA: 1. All parged brick surfaces will be painted Sherwin Williams Rookwood Terra Cotta (SW 2803) or a similar brick color. 2. Prior to installation of the wooden stairway and screen door to the second floor screen porch at 123 East Washington, the applicant will provide a rendering of the design which does not distract from the historic character of the building. 4. Usable bricks from the demolition of the wall at the rear of 125 East Washington Street shall be salvaged for re-use on other projects. 5. Prior to repairs to the sunroom, the applicant shall provide information in regard to the condition of the sunroom and the anticipated repairs and repair materials. 6. A site plan delineating the landscaping associated with the improved parking lot shall be submitted for review and approval. In September 2016, an administrative COA was granted for 119 East Washington Street to allow for the replacement of the standing seam metal roof, which is not visible to the right-of-way, with a white TPO membrane roofing system in accordance with Sec. 31-413(g)(5) if the Unified Development Ordinance. In addition, new metal drip edging and flashing was approved. HLC2018-00023 July 12, 2018 Page 3 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. Pave the existing gravel parking area at the rear of the property with asphalt to establish twenty-one (21) striped parking spaces, as indicated on the site plan. 2. Install a six (6) foot tall black ornamental aluminum fence around the perimeter of the parking area, which is fifty (50) percent open. 3. Install two (2) twenty-six (26) foot wide matching gates to manage access from 101 East Washington Street and the public right-of-way from the rear. 4. Install perimeter landscaping along the western and eastern property lines. Condition Statement Not applicable for this application. Surrounding Characteristics As stated, the subject property is located within the East Washington Street boundary expansion. The surrounding properties consist of a combination of non-contributing and contributing commercial buildings constructed between 1900 and 2000. A detailed description of adjacent and nearby properties is provided below. 100 North Main Street – Contributing seven-story Colonial Revival office building constructed in 1916. 101 East Washington Street – Non-contributing two-story brick bank building constructed circa 1985-2000. 120 East Washington Street – Contributing two-story commercial building constructed circa 1900-1914. 122-124 East Washington Street – Contributing two-story Italianate commercial building constructed circa 1900-1914. 127-131 East Washington Street – Contributing two-story Italianate commercial building constructed between 1905 and 1920. Site Modifications All of the proposed actions consist of site modifications to the rear of the property. Please refer to the attached site plan. HLC2018-00023 July 12, 2018 Page 4 Applicable Regulations A. Suffolk Historic District Design Guidelines Chapter 5, Section D. Off-Street Parking and Driveways:  Areas serving as parking areas should, to the maximum extent possible, be located only at the sides and rear of the lot. Parking lots are not permitted in front of residential buildings. Where parking lots are located in a side yard, screen fencing should be installed to visually screen the parking area from adjacent residences and public rights-of-way.  In terms of paving, driveways should have a traditional appearance, based on historic paving materials used for residential settings, such as river gravel, rotten rock, exposed aggregate concrete, colored concrete, brick, concrete pavers in a brick or cobble style, or other traditional paving type. Asphalt paving should be restricted to parking lots only. Chapter 5, Section E.2 Decorative Fences:  Decorative fencing is usually used where fences will be visible from public streets in front and side yards to accent the yard and provide some degree of enclosure. Decorative fences can be made of wrought iron and wood pickets, with or without brick piers. Plastic and vinyl fencing is not allowed unless specifically approved by the Historic Landmarks Commission. Chain link fencing and other wire fencing are prohibited. B. Secretary of the Interior Standards As stated in the Secretary of the Interior Standards, new additions, exterior alternations, and new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize a property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. C. Unified Development Ordinance In accordance with Section 31-407 of the Unified Development Ordinance, there is no maximum impervious cover limitation in the Central Business District. Thus, the request to pave the existing gravel parking lot would be permitted. The Administrator of the Historic Landmarks Commission may only approve off-street parking areas containing ten (10) spaces or less, in accordance with Section 31-413 (5) (B) (viii). Therefore, the requested twenty-one (21) designated parking spaces can only be approved after a public hearing and favorable action by the Commission. Similarly, the Administrator is permitted to approve fences that are three-and-one-half (3 ½) feet in height or less, as stated in Section 31-413 (7) (A) (viii). Thus, the proposed six (6) foot fence requires HLC action. HLC2018-00023 July 12, 2018 Page 5 Section 31-701 of the UDO states that fences located in side or rear yards shall not exceed eight (8) feet in height other than yards adjacent to a street, which may not exceed six (6) feet in height. The proposed fencing is located in the side and rear yards, adjacent to the unnamed public right-of-way to the rear; hence, the permitted fence height is six (6) feet. All landscaping must comply with Section 31-603 and will be reviewed as part of the required Site Plan Waiver application. Staff Analysis The applicant requests to pave the existing parking lot using asphalt, install six (6) foot tall ornamental fencing and associated gates for security, and add new perimeter landscaping. According to the applicant, the existing gravel parking lot is comprised of approximately 8,900 square feet and the proposed area to be paved is 6,577 square feet, which would result in a reduction of 2,323 square feet of impervious cover. If constructed, the parking lot would accommodate twenty-one (21) striped spaces, whereas the current parking area does not have delineated spaces. The proposed ornamental fencing would be constructed using black aluminum, fifty (50) percent open fencing, which is similar to the fencing utilized at City Hall. Two (2) matching twenty-six (26) foot, six (6) foot tall gates are proposed to limit access from 101 East Washington Street and the public right-of-way from the rear in order to ensure that the patrons of the subject properties have reserved parking. The proposed landscaping includes three (3) Willow Oak trees along the west property line and several dozen shrubs along the east property line. The Historic District standards state that parking areas should be located only at the sides and rear of lots and asphalt paving should be restricted to parking lots only. The existing parking lot is situated at an appropriate location as it is behind the subject buildings and hidden from view along East Washington Street. The existing orientation and massing of the parking lot is in keeping with other commercial properties in the Historic District. The proposed paving would not detract from the existing historic structures on the site. In addition, the paved parking lot would improve the ease of ingress/egress from the adjacent bank parking lot and city right-of- way to the south, which are both improved surfaces. As previously stated, the Historic Landmarks Commission approved a former request to pave the rear parking area using asphalt. With regards to fencing, the Historic District Guidelines state that decorative fencing should be used where fences will be visible from public streets in front and side yards to accent the yard and provide some degree of enclosure. Decorative fences can be made of wrought iron and wood pickets, with or without brick piers. Plastic and vinyl fencing is not allowed unless specifically approved by the Historic Landmarks Commission. Furthermore, chain link fencing and other wire fencing are prohibited. The proposed style and finish of the fence and gates are similar to the appearance of wrought iron. The proposed fence height of six (6) feet is considered appropriate being that the subject property abuts a public right-of-way to the rear and is adjacent to a bank parking lot to the east. If, however, the proposed fence were located in a front yard adjacent to a street, this height would not be appropriate. The final component of the application is landscaping, which will be reviewed as part of the required Site Plan Waiver application. The proposed landscaping is situated at suitable locations on the site and will offer an aesthetic improvement and softening of the landscape. HLC2018-00023 July 12, 2018 Page 6 Summary and Recommendations Based on the previous findings-of-fact, staff recommends approval of the following actions requested by Certificate of Appropriateness, HLC2018-00023, with the conditions noted below: 1. Pave the existing gravel parking area at the rear of the property with asphalt to establish twenty-one (21) striped parking spaces, as indicated on the site plan. 2. Install a six (6) foot tall black ornamental aluminum fence around the perimeter of the parking area, which is fifty (50) percent open. 3. Install two (2) twenty-six (26) foot wide matching gates to manage access from 101 East Washington Street and the public right-of-way from the rear. 4. Install perimeter landscaping along the western and eastern property lines. All landscaping must comply with Section 31-603 of the Unified Development Ordinance. 5. Any additional improvements shall require a Certificate of Appropriateness. 6. All required permits, including but not limited to a Site Plan Waiver, shall be obtained from the City of Suffolk. Attachments cc: Randy McReynolds, agent HLC2018-00023  ZONING / LAND USE MAP HLC2018-00023 ST AIN ST NM E RCE COMM WW ASH ING TON ST EW AS HI N GT ON ST 34G18(A)*285 RD NA T LI RO CE S CA CO M ME R RD A LI N RO CA CBD s IN S T S MA T AN S AVE HALL MOR G User Name: bsmith Date: 6/14/2018 HLC2018-00023 – 119, 121, and 125 East Washington Street Front/South view of the buildings located on the subject property: Existing gravel lot on subject property indicated below: 1 HLC2018-00023 – 119, 121, and 125 East Washington Street Existing driveway apron from the public right-of-way located to the south. Location of one of the proposed gates: View looking northwest: 2 HLC2018-00023 – 119, 121, and 125 East Washington Street View looking northeast: Existing connection to the adjacent property at 101 East Washington Street (BB&T). Location of the second proposed gate: 3 HLC2018-00023 – 119, 121, and 125 East Washington Street View looking south from the adjacent property when parking area is in-use. This gives a sense of the number of the vehicles that can be accommodated on the subject property and shows the second proposed gate location: View looking southwest: 4 HLC2018-00023 – 119, 121, and 125 East Washington Street Proposed 6’ ornamental black aluminum fence: Proposed 26’ x 6’ gate to match fencing above: 5  Property Maintenance Code Enforcement Update July 2018 ADDRESS CODE VIOLATION(S) STATUS  Peeling and flaking paint on exterior Court case continued until 209 PEARL ST wood surfaces of main and accessory 7/5/18 structures 204 BANK ST  Peeling and flaking paint Granted extension until 7/5/18  Deteriorated exterior walls  Deteriorated foundation 118 PINNER ST  Deteriorated roof system Court case schedule for 7/5/18  Deteriorated front porch  Deteriorated windows 221 PINNER ST  Deteriorated retaining wall Court case schedule for 7/5/18  Deteriorated eaves overhang  Deteriorated trim  Rusted roof Re-issued notice of violation to 121 PINNER ST  Peeling and flaking paint on exterior new property owner wood surfaces of main structure  Peeling and flaking paint on chimney Zoning Case Activity Report July 2018 PROPERTY OWNER(s) LOCATION VIOLATION(s) JUDGEMENT INSPECTOR Raven P. Coston 222 Pinner St Zoning-Changing Windows without a COA Fined $200 Matt Gregory Mitchell 131 Clay St Zoning- Installed Roof with no COA Court 8/2/2018 Matt Jeffrey Townsend 178 E. Washington St Window signs and window tint, no COA Court 8/2/2018 Matt Jeffrey Townsend 180 E. Washington St Wall & Window signs, window tint No COA Non Suited Matt Jeffrey Townsend 178 E. Washington St Covered Patio without COA NOV issued 5/17/2018 Matt