Historic Landmarks Commission Packets

City of Suffolk HISTORIC LANDMARKS COMMISSION September 13, 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, September 12, 2018 (757) 514-4060 PREPARED BY THE CITY OF SUFFOLK DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF PLANNING  AGENDA Historic Landmarks Commission Meeting Thursday, September 13, 2018 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 HLC2018-00029, submitted by Jacob Wood, agent for Marissa Bailey, property owner, for exterior material repair and replacement to property located at 215, 215 1/2, and 215 ¾ Grace Street. The property is further identified as Zoning Map 34G18, Block (A), Parcel 92, Suffolk Voting Borough, zoned RM, Residential Medium 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 July 12, 2018 9:00 A.M. The regular meeting of the Historic Landmarks Commission was held on Thursday, July 12, 2018, at 9:00 a.m., in the Council Chambers of Suffolk City Hall, 442 W. Washington Street, Suffolk, Virginia, with the following persons present: MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF: Susan Coley Claire Jones, Secretary Mary Austin Darden Karla Carter, Assistant City Attorney Merritt Draper Amy Thurston, Planner II Oliver Hobbs Connie Blair, Planning Technician Edward King Kimberly Allen, Planning Technician Vivian Turner MEMBERS ABSENT: Larry Riddick 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: Ms. Jones informed the Commission that the voting record in the packet contained an error that has since been corrected. The minutes of the previous meeting were approved as amended. NEW BUSINESS: Election of Officers: Vice-Chairman Hobbs announced the annual election of officers and requested nominations for the office of Chairman. A nomination, followed by a motion, was made by Commissioner King to elect Kermit Hobbs as Chairman. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Draper. There being no other nominations, the nominations were closed and the motion was passed unanimously. Chairman Hobbs requested nominations for the office of Vice-Chairman. A nomination, followed by a motion, was made by Commissioner King to elect Mary Austin Darden as Vice-Chairman. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Turner. There being no other nominations, the nominations were closed and the motion was passed unanimously. The Commission unanimously agreed to re-appoint Ms. Jones as Secretary. 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 The first public hearing item was introduced by Chairman Hobbs, followed by a staff report from Amy Thurston, Planner II. Ms. Thurston stated the subject property includes three (3) addresses, 119, 121, and 125 East Washington Street, which are located on one (1) parcel, which is part of the 2002 East Washington Street Expansion of the Suffolk Historic Conservation Overlay District. Ms. Thurston noted that the most common building form in this area is brick-fronted Italianate or Vernacular style commercial structures, usually with large show windows and flat roofs, and most of which have ornate parapets and central recessed entranceways. The National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form states the building located at 119 and 121 East Washington Street is a contributing Vernacular commercial building that was constructed circa 1900-1914. The second building, 125 East Washington Street, is listed as a contributing Colonial Revival commercial structure that was constructed later circa 1923. The rear of the subject property currently contains a gravel parking lot that is accessed from the neighboring property at 101 East Washington Street and an unnamed public right-of-way to the rear. Presently, the site does not contain any landscaping or fencing. The applicant requests to pave the existing gravel parking area with asphalt, install a six (6) foot tall black ornamental aluminum fence around the perimeter of the parking area, install two (2) twenty-six (26) foot wide matching gates for access to 101 East Washington Street and the public right-of-way in the rear, and to install perimeter landscaping along the western and eastern property lines. Ms. Thurston noted 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 District, and the proposed paving would not detract from the 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. Ms. Thurston noted that the Historic Landmarks Commission (HLC) previously approved a request to pave the rear parking area with asphalt. The Historic District Guidelines state that decorative fencing should be used where fences are visible from public streets in front and side yards. Decorative fences can be made of wrought iron and wood pickets. Alternative materials are not permitted unless specifically approved by the HLC. The proposed aluminum fence and gates are similar to the appearance of wrought iron, and the proposed fence height 2 of six (6) feet is considered appropriate for this location. However, if the proposed fence were located in a front yard, this height would not be appropriate. Ms. Thurston noted that the addition of landscaping would also improve the overall appearance of the property. In conclusion, Ms. Thurston stated that staff recommends approval of the actions requested by Certificate of Appropriateness, HLC2018-00023, with the conditions noted in the staff report. The public hearing was opened and Mr. Randy McReynolds, applicant, spoke in favor of the application. Jennifer Groves, 136 S. Main Street, spoke in opposition noting concerns about the appearance of safety fencing in downtown. There being no other speakers, the public hearing was closed. Chairman Hobbs noted that the scope of HLC approval only addresses the appropriateness of the proposed structure and materials under the design standards of the Historic Overlay District and does not address whether a fence is permitted. The Commission also discussed other examples of the proposed fencing in the District. Following this discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner Darden to approve staff’s recommendation as presented. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Draper and approved by a recorded vote of 6-0. OLD BUSINESS: Chairman Hobbs invited interested Commission members to attend the City Council meeting on July 18, 2018, which includes an appeal of the HLC decision in regard to HLC2018-00014. Chairman Hobbs requested permission to speak on behalf of the Board at the City Council meeting. The Board granted permission to Chairman Hobbs to speak on their behalf. STAFF REPORTS: Enforcement Update: Donald Bennett, Property Maintenance Official, reported on the following properties: • 209 Pearl Street – Court case dismissed, homeowner in compliance • 204 Bank Street – Court case dismissed, homeowner in compliance • 221 Pinner Street –Court case dismissed, homeowner in compliance • 118 Pinner Street – Null service • 121 Pinner Street – Reissued again, null service on property owner Zoning Update: Matthew Levy, Zoning Inspector, reported on the following properties: • 222 Pinner St – Fined $200 • 131 Clay St – Scheduled for court 8/2/2018 3  • 178 E. Washington St – Scheduled for court 8/2/2018 • 180 E. Washington St – Non-suited • 178 E. Washington St – NOV issued 5/17/2018 Administrative Approvals: Ms. Jones provided a brief report on the one administrative COA approved since the last HLC meeting in June and noted that a copy was provided in the meeting packet. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. 4  HISTORIC LANDMARKS COMMISSION Motion: To approve with staff recommendations as presented 1st: Darden July 12, 2018 2nd: Draper HLC2018-23 ATTENDANCE VOTE: 6-0 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT ABSENT YES NO Coley, Susan M. X X Darden, Mary Austin, Vice X X Chairman Draper, Merritt X X Hobbs, Oliver, Chairman X X King, Edward L. X X Riddick, Larry X Turner, Vivian 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: Kevin M. Wyne, AICP, Principal Planner Date: September 13, 2018 Subject: REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS HLC2018- 00029, submitted by Jacob Wood, agent for Marissa Bailey, property owner, for exterior material repair and replacement to property located at 215, 215 ½, and 215 ¾ Grace Street. The property is further identified as Zoning Map 34G18, Block A, Parcel 92, Suffolk Voting Borough, zoned RM, Residential Medium District, and HC, Historic Conservation Overlay District. STAFF REPORT Overview of the Subject Property and Surrounding Area The subject property is located within the Original Suffolk Historic District, which was created in 1987. The Vernacular structure is located on Grace Street in a northern extension of “New Town,” developed around 1888. "New Town” is characterized by its interesting mix of modest vernacular buildings with more impressive “stylistic” structures. Grace Street was planned northward from Bank Street to the east of the G.W. Truitt property located at 204 Bank Street. The 200 block of Grace Street consists almost entirely of two-story Vernacular frame dwellings built in the last two decades of the nineteenth century, giving it a strongly cohesive historic impression. Three of these dwellings have been converted to duplexes, but the overall appearance of the street is largely unchanged from the period of significance. The structure located at 215, 215½, and 215¾ Grace Street is a two-story frame dwelling, circa 1890, and is now configured as a triplex. It is a contributing structure constructed in a Vernacular architectural style with a Vernacular porch. Other notable features of the dwelling include: weatherboard (aluminum siding); cross gable roof (asphalt shingle); projecting bay window (front elevation); and, cornice returns. HLC2018-00029 September 13, 2018 Page 2 Case History No previous Certificates of Appropriateness have been issued for this property. Public Notice This request has been duly advertised in accordance with the public notice requirements set forth in Section 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia, as amended, and with the applicable provisions of the Unified Development Ordinance. A notice, containing a copy of the staff report, was also provided to the applicant on September 7, 2018. Proposed Actions The applicant is requesting to repair or replace several exterior elements that were damaged in a March 2018 fire. Exterior elements proposed for replacement and/or repair were damaged either by the fire itself or by the water used to put out the fire. The impacted elements include first and second story windows, 4 exterior entry doors, aluminum siding on the east (front) and south elevations, and front porch decking and ceiling boards. The applicant’s entire request consists of the following items: 1. The in-kind replacement of aluminum siding on the eastern and southern elevations, white in color. 2. The in-kind replacement of 2 wooden, two-panel, six-lite, craftsman style entry doors on the first floor, eastern (front) elevation, painted white. 3. The in-kind replacement of 1 wooden, two-panel, six-lite, craftsman style entry door on the second floor, eastern (front) elevation, painted white. 4. The in-kind replacement of 1 steel, raised six-panel entry door on the basement level, western (rear) elevation, white in color. 5. The replacement of 12 wooden 6/6 double-hung sash windows on the first and second floors of the northern, western, and southern elevations, with wooden 2/2 double-hung simulated divided lite windows. 6. The replacement of 2 wooden, 4/4 double-hung sash windows on the first and second floors of the southern elevation, with wooden 2/2 double-hung simulated divided lite windows 7. The in-kind replacement, of 6 wooden 2/2 double-hung sash windows on the first and second floors of the eastern (front) and northern elevations, with wooden 2/2 double- hung simulated divided lite windows. HLC2018-00029 September 13, 2018 Page 3 8. Reframe existing wooden window openings where windows will be replaced with a composite sill. 9. The replacement of ¾” x 2 ¾” wood, tongue and groove, front porch decking and ceiling boards with 1” x 3 ¼” wood, tongue and groove, front porch decking and ceiling boards on the eastern (front) elevation on both the first and second floors. 10. In-kind repair and replacement of front porch framing and joists. Contractor’s Statement The applicant has provided a statement from a licensed general contractor and photographic evidence indicating the degree of damage sustained to the structure as a result of the fire. Evidence illustrates the damage to all the windows, aluminum siding, doors, and decking and ceiling boards slated for replacement. Surrounding Characteristics A detailed description of adjacent and nearby properties is provided below. 213 Grace Street – A two-story, contributing Vernacular structure, constructed circa 1890. 214 Grace Street – A two-story, contributing Vernacular structure, constructed circa 1885. 216-216 ½ Grace Street – A two-story, contributing Vernacular duplex, constructed circa 1885. 217 Grace Street – A two-story, contributing Vernacular structure, constructed circa 1900. Site Modifications The applicant does not propose any site modifications as part of this application. Applicable Regulations A. Suffolk Historic District Design Guidelines 1. Chapter 4, Section C, Window Openings: Windows are a major character and style-determining feature of an historic building. It is very important that the windows of an historic building be preserved where possible to maintain their size and details. 2. Chapter 4, Section C.3, Guidelines for Window Preservation: HLC2018-00029 September 13, 2018 Page 4  Maintain Original Windows: 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 resources 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.  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 of the building; and o Material performance and durability. 3. Chapter 4, Section D, Doors: Like windows, door openings are a major character and style-determining feature of an historic building. Taken together, these elements usually act in unison to visually define the directional emphasis and proportions of the façade as well as the style. It is very important that the doors of an historic building be preserved, where possible, to maintain their size and details. 4. Chapter 4, Section D.1, Background: Doors help to define a building’s particular style and serve to allow access to the interior of a building. When in association with porches and entrances, they may be decorated and ceremonial. Doors on secondary facades tend to be simpler and more utilitarian. A variety of doors can be found in the Suffolk Historic Conservation Overlay District. Many of the doors are wood with different types of panels. While the six-panel door is common, other types include doors with tall, narrow, arched panels or recessed carved panels or doors with rectangular or oval glass panes. Flush doors are also found in the district. This design is more recent, and generally does not have an historic appearance. In addition to the style or door, decorated entrances also include features such as pilasters, pediments, leaded glass transoms, sidelights, and fanlights. 3. Chapter 5, Section J, Residential Porches and Entrances: Entrances and porches are often the primary focal points of an historic building. In addition to being functional and ceremonial, elements for all buildings, their decoration and articulation, help define the style of the structure. For residential buildings, porches have traditionally HLC2018-00029 September 13, 2018 Page 5 served as a social gathering point as well as a transition area between the exterior and interior. The retention of porches is critical to maintaining the integrity of the historic dwelling’s original design. 4. Chapter 5, Section J.2, Guidelines for Residential Porches:  Do not strip entrances and porches of historic material and details.  Do not remove or radically change entrances and porches which serve to define the building’s overall historic character.  Replace an entire porch only if it is too deteriorated to repair or is completely missing. The new porch should match the original as closely as possible. 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 and character defining elements. Where replacement is determined to be necessary, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. The design of replacement features shall also be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. Changes that create a false sense of historical development are strongly discouraged. Staff Analysis The applicant is requesting to replace aluminum siding, entry doors, 20 windows, and front porch decking and ceiling boards that were damaged as a result of a March 2018 fire. The replacement of the aluminum siding will be in-kind as will be the replacement of the damaged entry doors. All other features slated for replacement will not be true in-kind replacements, but have been selected to closely match original features. Of the 20 windows to be replaced, 10 are 6/6 double-hung sash wooden windows, 6 are 2/2 double-hung sash wooden windows, and 4 are 4/4 double-hung sash wooden windows. The Historic District Design Guidelines identify windows as a major character and style- determining feature of a historic building and therefore discourages their replacement. The Guidelines offers clear directions on the preservation of windows and the criteria for evaluating the installation of replacement windows. The Historic District Design Guidelines further state the removal of historic resources shall be avoided, therefore the rehabilitation or repair of the deteriorated window section(s) should be the primary objective. When replacement of the original window is requested, the Historic District Design Guidelines call for a signed statement from a licensed general contractor stating the condition of the existing windows. Supporting documentation for any application for a Certificate of Appropriateness seeking authorization for the replacement of windows should include exhibits and information on the ability of the windows to be repaired, need for replacement, proposed corrective measures, and options for replacement. The applicant has provided an assessment documenting the condition of the existing windows thereby establishing the need for replacement. Photographs of the damaged windows are attached to this report. HLC2018-00029 September 13, 2018 Page 6 The 6 wooden 2/2, double-hung sash windows requiring replacement are proposed to be replaced with wooden 2/2 double-hung simulated divided lite windows matching the previous windows in style, profile, and material. The proposed replacement windows align with the guidance outlined in The Historic District Design Guidelines. The other 14 windows proposed for replacement are either 6/6 double-hung or 4/4 double-hung sash wooden windows. The applicant’s proposal requests replacing all of these windows with wooden 2/2 double-hung simulated divided lite windows to make these windows consistent with those on the front elevation. The windows slated for replacement appear to be original to the structure. Additionally, it was common for structures of this time period, particularly simple Vernacular structures, to have one style of window prominent on the front elevation and a different style present on the side and rear elevations of a structure. As such, the replacement windows, while appropriate in material and profile, would not be true to the original configuration. It is recommended that the 6/6 windows be replaced using the same 6/6 configuration and the 4/4 windows be replaced using the same 4/4 configuration. As a part of the application, the applicant proposes to repair decking and ceiling boards on the front porch. The porch has two levels and is accessible to the first and second stories. Structurally, portions of the porch will require reframing and joist repair. Additionally, portions of the existing decking and ceiling boards sustained damaged and will require replacement as detailed in the statement provided a licensed contractor. Photographs of the damaged boards are attached to this report. Front entryways are prominent and important features on structures and the replacement of an existing porch should be limited to only cases where the original porch is too deteriorated to repair or is completely missing. In those cases, the new porch should match the original as closely as possible. In this case, the applicant is proposing to replace ¾” x 2 ¾” wood, tongue and groove, front porch decking and ceiling boards with 1” x 3 ¼” wood, tongue and groove, front porch decking and ceiling boards on the eastern (front) elevation on both the first and second floors. The replacement boards will be ½” wider than the original, which will result in a negligible difference from the original boards, thus meeting the standards set forth in The Historic District Design Guidelines. The boards will be painted a color matching the existing boards. Lastly, the applicant is requesting the in-kind replacement of aluminum siding that was damaged as a result of the fire. The siding will be replaced on the eastern (front) and southern elevations where the fire damage was extensive. It is important to note that aluminum siding, as well as other synthetic sidings that have been introduced over time, is generally not appropriate on historic structures. In general, original historic siding materials on an historic building should be maintained in-place. Only where original materials have deteriorated significantly beyond the point of restoration, should they be replaced. The structure had been sided in aluminum at some point in the past, and although aluminum siding it not typically a permitted material, with only the two elevations damaged by the fire being replaced, in this case the proposed in-kind replacement is acceptable in keeping with previous approvals in cases where fire damaged non- conforming materials. HLC2018-00029 September 13, 2018 Page 7 Summary and Recommendations 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 HLC2018-00029: 1. The in-kind replacement of aluminum siding on the eastern (front) and southern elevations, white in color. 2. The in-kind replacement of 2 wooden, two-panel, six-lite, craftsman style entry doors on the first floor of the eastern (front) elevation, painted white. 3. The in-kind replacement of 1 wooden, two-panel, six-lite, craftsman style entry door on the second floor of the eastern (front) elevation, painted white. 4. The in-kind replacement of 1 steel, raised six-panel entry door on the basement level of the western (rear) elevation, white in color. 5. The in-kind replacement of 12 wooden 6/6 double-hung sash windows on the first and second floors of the northern, western, and southern elevations, with wooden 6/6 double- hung simulated divided lite windows. 6. The in-kind replacement of 2 wooden, 4/4 double-hung sash windows on the first and second floors of the southern elevation, with wooden 4/4 double-hung simulated divided lite windows 7. The in-kind replacement, of 6 wooden 2/2 double-hung sash windows on the first and second floors of the eastern (front) and northern elevations, with wooden 2/2 double- hung simulated divided lite windows. 8. Reframe existing wooden window openings where windows will be replaced with a composite sill. 9. The replacement of ¾” x 2 ¾” wood, tongue and groove, front porch decking and ceiling boards with 1” x 3 ¼” wood, tongue and groove, front porch decking and ceiling boards on the eastern (front) elevation on both the first and second floors. 10. In-kind repair and replacement of front porch framing and joists. 11. Any additional improvements shall require a Certificate of Appropriateness. 12. All required permits shall be obtained from the City of Suffolk. Attachments cc: Jacob Wood, agent for the property owner HLC2018-00029  ZONING / LAND USE MAP HLC2018-00029 OA K DA L R E TE R DA L E TE OA K CT ACE TER R T 34G18(A)*92 CE S GR A RM PEA R L ST BAN K ST User Name: bsmith Date: 8/20/2018 s HLC2018-00029 215, 215 ½, 215 ¾ Grace Street Subject Property Subject Property HLC2018-00029 215, 215 ½, 215 ¾ Grace Street HLC2018-00029 215, 215 ½, 215 ¾ Grace Street HLC2018-00029 215, 215 ½, 215 ¾ Grace Street HLC2018-00029 215, 215 ½, 215 ¾ Grace Street Zoning Case Activity Report September 2018 PROPERTY OWNER(s) LOCATION VIOLATION(s) JUDGEMENT INSPECTOR Gregory Mitchell 131 Clay St Zoning- Installed Roof with no COA Court 12/06/2018 Matt Jeffrey Townsend 178 E. Washington St Window signs and window tint, no COA Court 10/04/2018 Matt Jeffrey Townsend 178 E. Washington St Covered Patio without COA NOV issued 5/17/2018 Matt