Historic Landmarks Commission Packets

City of Suffolk HISTORIC LANDMARKS COMMISSION November 8, 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, November 7, 2018 (757) 514-4060 PREPARED BY THE CITY OF SUFFOLK DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF PLANNING  AGENDA Historic Landmarks Commission Meeting Thursday, November 8, 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 HLC2018-00025, submitted by Amos and Rosemary Riddick, property owners, to construct a rear addition and screened porch on property located at 230 Pinner Street. The property is further identified as Zoning Map 34G19, Block (A), Parcel 21, Suffolk Voting Borough, zoned RM, Residential Medium Density, and HC, Historic Conservation Overlay District. 2. Request for Certificate of Appropriateness HLC2018-00037, submitted by Jeffrey Townsend, property owner, for a covered patio addition and signage 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. V. Old Business VI. Staff Reports 1. Enforcement Updates a. Property Maintenance Official b. Zoning 2. Administrative Approvals VII. Adjournment  MINUTES HISTORIC LANDMARKS COMMISSION October 11, 2018 9:00 A.M. The regular meeting of the Historic Landmarks Commission was held on Thursday, October 11, 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 Kalli Jackson, Assistant City Attorney Merritt Draper Kevin Wyne, Principal Planner Larry Riddick Connie Blair, Planning Technician Edward King MEMBERS ABSENT: Oliver Hobbs Vivian Turner The meeting was called to order by Vice-Chairman Darden. 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 HLC2018-00029, 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. The first public hearing item was introduced by Vice-Chairman Darden, followed by a staff report from Kevin Wyne, Principal Planner. Mr. Wyne stated the application is for exterior material repair and replacement at the structure located at 215 Grace Street due to a fire that took place in March 2018. The subject property is located within the Original Suffolk Historic District, which was created in 1987. Mr. Wyne stated 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, which gives it a strong 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 subject property 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. Mr. Wyne stated the applicant is requesting to repair or replace several exterior elements that were damaged as a result of the March 2018 fire. The impacted elements are first and second story windows, four exterior entry doors, aluminum siding on the east (front) and south elevations, and front porch decking and ceiling boards. Mr. Wyne stated in-kind replacements are included in this application so that all actions may be approved concurrently. Mr. Wyne noted that the structure had been sided in aluminum in the past and, although aluminum siding is not typically a permitted material, in this case the proposed in-kind replacement is acceptable and aligns with previous approvals in cases where fire damaged non-conforming materials. Additional exterior elements the applicant is requesting for in-kind replacement are two entry doors on the first floor and an additional door that opens to the screened in porch on the second story. The replacement doors match the existing doors in configuration and dimension and will be painted white. Additionally, a steel rear entry door is slated for in-kind replacement and is not visible from the public right-of-way. Mr. Wyne stated windows are major character defining features and should always be restored when feasible. Twenty windows in total, mostly on the main floor, have sustained damage that has been documented as a result of the fire. The six 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 fourteen windows proposed for replacement are either 6/6 double-hung or 4/4 double-hung sash wooden windows. The applicant 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. Mr. Wyne noted that 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. 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. Lastly, the applicant proposes to repair decking and ceiling boards on the front porch where feasible, and to replace potions of the existing decking and ceiling boards as detailed in the statement provided by a licensed contractor. The wood replacement boards will be 1/2'” wider than the original, which will result in a negligible difference from the original boards, thus meeting the standards set forth in Design Guidelines. The boards will be painted a color matching the existing boards. 2 In conclusion, Mr. Wyne stated that the criteria of the Historic District Design Guidelines can be met with the conditions noted in the staff report. He noted the key variation in staff’s recommendation in regard to the windows, primarily the configuration of the windows. The applicant proposes replacing all windows with 2/2 windows for the sake of consistency. Staff recommends that replacement windows stay true to the original window configuration. This would result in the replacement of six 2/2 windows, two 4/4 windows, and twelve 6/6 windows with matching configurations. The public hearing was opened and Mr. Jacob Wood, applicant, spoke in favor of the application, noting that the proposed window configurations were requested for continuity. There being no other speakers, the public hearing was closed. The Commission discussed configurations of windows in this house and other houses on the street. Staff verified that variations in window configuration were common in the District at the time of construction. Following this discussion, 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 5-0. Request for Certificate of Appropriateness HLC2018-00031, submitted by Randy McReynolds, agent for Esppar, LLC, property owner, for exterior material repair and replacement, and the installation of new features at property located at 119, 123, and 125 E. Washington Street. The property is 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 second public hearing item was introduced by Vice-Chairman Darden, followed by a staff report from Kevin Wyne, Principal Planner. Mr. Wyne stated the subject property includes three building addresses, 119, 121, and 125 East Washington Street, which are located on one parcel that is part of the 2002 East Washington Street Expansion of the Suffolk Historic Conservation Overly District. Mr. Wyne noted the most common building form in this area is brick-fronted Italianate or Vernacular style commercial structures. The National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form states the building located at 119 and 123 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 circa 1923. The applicant is proposing a number of exterior changes to these structures. The most prominent alterations proposed for the structures include the replacement of wooden windows with vinyl windows on the front, rear, and side (west) elevations, the replacement of existing aluminum storefront windows and trim on the front elevation, the replacement of faux marble and tile veneer panels on the front elevation with granite, the bricking of two existing 6/6 double-hung windows on the rear elevation, and the installation of a metal staircase to serve as an exterior access point for the existing rear porch. 3 Additionally, the rear porch is proposed to be screened in and the existing wood replaced as needed. All three facades where changes are proposed are visible from the public right-of-way. Mr. Wyne stated this application also includes many minor actions to have all actions approved concurrently. Those actions include the repair of several entry doors, the restoration of a storefront transom window, and the repointing of brick walls on the rear elevation. Mr. Wyne reviewed the proposed changes by façade. He then noted the changes to the windows. On the front elevation there are four 1/1 wooden windows. These windows are in need of maintenance but restoration appears to be feasible. These windows are highly visible from East Washington Street and should be preserved and restored. Replacing these windows with vinyl replacement windows would not be appropriate and is not supported by the Historic District Design Guidelines. Other windows proposed for replacement includes twenty, 8-lite casement windows in a sunroom addition. These windows are visible from Carolina Road and should be restored and preserved. Fourteen of the twenty casement windows appear to be salvageable. The six windows on the front elevation are missing and not visible from the public right-of-way; therefore, they may be replaced with 8-lite casement vinyl clad windows that match the other sunroom casement windows in profile and dimension. In-kind replacement of the frames will be necessary. The applicant would like to replace seven existing 1/1 vinyl windows on the west façade. No vinyl windows have been approved for this building; therefore, they were installed without a Certificate of Appropriateness. A 1/1 vinyl clad window, matching the profile and dimensions of the existing windows openings, would be appropriate and supported by the District Guidelines. The replacement of the existing aluminum storefront windows and trim on the front facades of 123 and 125 East Washington Street will be an in-kind replacement. Replacement of storefront windows and frames that match the existing in dimension and color (which is an unpainted aluminum finish) is appropriate and supported by the Guidelines. The storefront elevations of 123 and 125 East Washington Street contain bulkheads under the existing storefront windows. The current bulkhead paneling is damaged and proposed for replacement with granite of acceptable color. The decking and floor joists will be replaced in-kind which is appropriate and supported by the District Guidelines. If a rear access staircase is needed, a metal staircase would be appropriate and would not detract from the historic integrity of the structure. The installation of the porch railing and the reinstallation of a screened in area of the second story porch can be installed in a manner consistent with the Historic District Design Guidelines. Staff recommends painting the columns white to match the porch railing. On the rear elevation, the one window slated for replacement can be replaced with a vinyl clad window of the same configuration and would be appropriate on this elevation. The two window openings 4 proposed for bricking is not a supportable action, as the Guidelines specify that original window openings be maintained. In conclusion, Mr. Wyne stated the proposed actions can align with the District Guidelines with some modifications to the proposed actions. Staff recommends approval with the conditions included in the staff report. The public hearing was opened and Mr. Randy McReynolds, applicant, spoke in favor of the application, stating his belief that vinyl windows should be allowed and would not be noticeable on the rear and side of the building. There being no other speakers, the public hearing was closed. The Commission discussed their responsibilities in regard to ensuring historical accuracy when reviewing changes to a building. They noted that windows are reviewed frequently and that there are differences in appearance between a vinyl clad window and a vinyl window. They noted that the Guidelines specifically allow for new windows that are wood, metal clad, or vinyl clad. Following this discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner Draper to approve the application with staff recommendations as presented. The motion was seconded by Commissioner King and approved by a recorded vote of 5-0. OLD BUSINESS: There were no items to discuss. 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 closed, homeowner in compliance • 118 Pinner Street – Null service, will reissue summons • 181 N. Main Street – Fined $100 • 113 St. James Avenue – NOV issued • 134 W. Washington Street – NOV issued Zoning Update: Frederick Sample, Assistant Zoning Administrator, reported on the following properties: • 131 Clay Street – Scheduled for court 12/6/2018 • 178 E. Washington Street – Scheduled for court 10/4/2018 • 217 Pearl Street – NOV issued 10/4/2018 There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. 5  HISTORIC LANDMARKS COMMISSION Motion: Motion: To approve with staff To approve with staff recommendations as recommendations as presented presented 1st: Riddick 1st: Draper October 11, 2018 2nd: Draper 2nd: King HLC2018-29 HLC2018-31 ATTENDANCE VOTE: 5-0 VOTE: 5-0 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT ABSENT YES NO YES NO Coley, Susan M. X X X Darden, Mary Austin, Vice X X X Chairman Draper, Merritt X X X Hobbs, Oliver, Chairman X King, Edward L. X X X Riddick, Larry X X X Turner, Vivian X  CITY OF SUFFOLK 442 W WASHINGTON STREET, 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: Claire Jones, AICP, Secretary Date: November 8, 2018 Re: REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS HLC2018-00025, submitted by Amos and Rosemary Riddick, property owners, to construct a rear addition and screened porch on property located at 230 Pinner Street. The property is further identified as Zoning Map 34G19(A)*21, Suffolk Voting Borough, zoned RM, Residential Medium Density, and HC, Historic Conservation Overlay District. STAFF REPORT Overview of the Subject Property and Surrounding Area The subject property is located at 230 Pinner Street within the original boundaries of the Suffolk Historic District (1987). According to the National Register of Historic Places-Inventory Nomination Form for the Suffolk Historic District, the 200 block of Pinner Street was part of John Franklin Pinner’s “New Town,” which expanded to the north of Bank Street sometime after 1877. The west side of the 200 block developed with wide spacing between houses and was the location of Pinner’s residence, at 231 Pinner Street, and later that of his son, Beauregard, at 227 Pinner Street. The east side of Pinner Street features a number of medium-sized houses and a few more modest sized houses. A number of late nineteenth and early twentieth century architectural styles are present, including Queen Anne, Colonial Revival, Tudor Revival, and Vernacular structures. The period of significance dates from the John Pinner House, circa 1870s, to the construction of the son's house in the 1930s. Overall, this section of the street is largely intact and retains a strongly cohesive historic impression. The subject property features a contributing structure constructed circa 1900. It is a symmetrical 2- story, 3-bay wood frame (asbestos shingle) Vernacular dwelling with a center gable standing seam metal roof and Italianate cornice. While located on affluent Pinner Street, it is noted to be similar in design to the working-class structures on Holladay and Pine Streets. HLC2018-00025 November 8, 2018 Page 2 Case History In June 2017, the subject property was damaged by fire. A previously existing covered porch at the rear of the property was destroyed as a result. Following the fire in February 2018, a Certificate of Appropriateness, HLC2018-00003, was approved for construction of a 24’ x 16’ screened porch at the rear of the dwelling in the same location as the proposed addition and porch now under consideration. Two previous certificates of appropriateness are on file for this property: • Certificate of Appropriateness HC-2004-05 was approved for the subject property in March 2004 to permit expansion of the front porch to the full width of the house. • Certificate of Appropriateness HC-2001-19 was approved for the subject property in May 2001 for painting of the detached garage and the trim on the house. Issue The applicant is requesting to construct a single story frame addition and screened porch at the rear of the existing structure, in the same location as the covered porch that was destroyed by the 2017 fire. Because the existing structure and the previously existing porch are nonconforming in regard to the required side setback and impervious surface ratio, any new construction will not be permitted to exceed the previous footprint. The location will be verified by zoning review prior to construction. 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 November 2, 2018. Proposed Actions The applicant requests approval of the following actions: 1. Construct a single story frame addition at the rear (east side) of the property, approximately 18’6” x 6’ in size, utilizing the following materials: • Roof – Gable, GAF Timberline Natural Shadow architectural shingles in charcoal • Siding – Carolina Beaded vinyl siding to match house • Rear door – Steel JELD-WEN French patio door with interior blinds, in white • Windows – Two Pella ThermaStar 6/6 double hung vinyl windows, in white • Foundation – Concrete block 2. Construct a screened porch on the east side of the proposed addition, approximately 18’6” HLC2018-00025 November 8, 2018 Page 3 x 16’6” in size, utilizing the following materials: • Roof – Gable, GAF Timberline Natural Shadow architectural shingles in charcoal • Posts – 6x6 treated wood, to be painted black • Screen – Charcoal in color • Door – Springview decorative wooden screen door, to be painted black to match posts • Foundation – Concrete block Applicable Regulations A. Suffolk Historic District Design Guidelines 1. Chapter 1, Section F, Appropriate Design of Additions and Alterations for Buildings: Changes to historic buildings should be appropriately designed to be compatible with the architecture and overall character of the historic district. Additions and alterations to buildings require careful design in order to preserve and strengthen the character of the district. 2. Chapter 5, Section G, Design of the Building Mass – Additions: A building’s mass is comprised of its shape, the relationship of height and width, the foundation, and the roof. These elements are important in defining the character of a building and should be considered when planning an addition. G.2 Form of Additions An addition to an historic house should be designed so that its form is based on the form of the original house, with emphasis placed on ensuring that the original form is not overwhelmed by the addition. G.3 Directional Expression An addition to a house should continue the directional expression of the original dwelling including eave heights, roof designs, window proportions and siding direction. G.4 Height and Width of Additions For additions to historic residences, the height of additions should not exceed the height of the primary roof structure. Roofs should be stepped down from the main roof where possible so that the addition’s roof does not dominate the original historic roof. 3. Chapter 5, Section H, Foundation Design: Together with the material it is made from, the foundation forms not only the base of a building but is also important in forming its historic character. On many structures, the material of the foundation is indistinguishable from the walls of the buildings while on others it is a different material or texture or is raised well above ground level. Solid Brick foundations are common for residential HLC2018-00025 November 8, 2018 Page 4 buildings in the district. Masonry Pier foundations are also typical with the spaces between the piers often filled in with brick. H.3 Additions Guidelines When designing an addition to an historic house, match the original foundation using a traditional foundation treatment based on the historic treatments on the existing building. Also, respect the foundation's height, contrast of materials, and textures of foundations on surrounding historic buildings. 4. Chapter 5, Section I, Roofs: The roof is one of the most important elements of a structure since it serves as its “cover” from the elements. As a consequence, roof maintenance is absolutely critical for ensuring the preservation of the rest of the structure. I.6 Design of Roof Additions Roof forms for additions to residential buildings can vary but should be pitched and not flat. They must also relate to neighboring historic buildings in type, level of complexity, and materials. 5. 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 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. J.2 Guidelines for Residential Porches • Do not add a new entrance or porch to a primary elevation where one has never existed. • Do not enclose porches on primary elevations and avoid enclosing porches on secondary elevations in a manner that radically changes the historic appearance. Give more importance to front or side porches than to utilitarian back porches. B. Secretary of the Interior Standards Guideline #9: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. Staff Analysis Additions to contributing structures in the Historic Overlay District require thoughtful design in order to preserve and strengthen the character of the district. Additions should relate to the original structure in form, material, and massing, while allowing the new work to be distinguished from the HLC2018-00025 November 8, 2018 Page 5 old. The Historic District Guidelines address each element of proposed additions, placing particular emphasis on design, massing, foundation and roof design, materials, and porches. Design and Massing The applicant proposes a single story frame addition approximately six feet in depth extending from the portion of the rear elevation where a covered porch previously existed. To the east of this addition, the applicant proposes a screened porch approximately sixteen and a half feet in depth. The information provided indicates that the roof will be continuous between the addition and the porch, with a pedimented gable end above the porch. The form and directional expression proposed follow that of the original structure, which has a simple side hall plan with additions extending in a T-shaped form to the rear. The proposed gable roof is compatible with the gable of the original house and follows the form of the porch addition that previously existed. The proposed single story addition and porch do not exceed the height of the existing structure and will not overwhelm it. The proposed width of the addition and porch is less than that of the existing structure and will be limited based on the location of the porch they replace. They will be set back approximately 6.7 feet from the property line behind the main structure, which will reduce its visual impact from the street. Foundation The existing house sits on a low brick foundation typical of houses of this period. Due to its low profile and because of existing privacy fencing and shrubbery, little of the foundation is visible from the street. The applicant proposes a low cinder block foundation for the addition and decorative block for the porch. Under the Guidelines, a foundation for an addition should match the original foundation using a traditional foundation treatment based on the existing historic treatments. Additionally, the foundation's height, contrast of materials, and textures should complement the historic building. The Guidelines also state that cinder block is not an historic material and should be avoided. If block is approved as the foundation material, it should be faced in red brick to match the existing foundation. Roof The existing house features a center gable roof in standing seam metal that is painted black. The applicant proposes a gable roof that will cover both the addition and the porch, utilizing GAF Timberline Natural Shadow architectural shingles in charcoal. As previously discussed, the form of the proposed roof is appropriate and complements the existing roof. The proposed material will match the existing roof in color and architectural shingle is permitted elsewhere in the District as a replacement for roofing materials no longer produced and for new construction. The shingles will also allow the addition to be clearly differentiated from the existing contributing structure. HLC2018-00025 November 8, 2018 Page 6 Materials The existing house is a frame dwelling that likely would have been sided in weatherboard at the time of construction. The 1987 National Register Nomination Form noted this structure as having asbestos shingle siding, which came into use in the United States in the 1920s and remained popular through the 1960s. It is unknown when this siding was applied to the structure but it was covered by vinyl siding sometime after 1987 and no Certificate of Appropriateness is on file for that material. The applicant proposes to side the addition in Carolina Beaded vinyl siding to match the house. The Guidelines note that wood siding is the most common and appropriate material for new construction in the Historic District. If wood siding is not used, then fiber-cement siding is the preferred alternative; however, the Guidelines also state that synthetic siding can be acceptable on additions to the primary historic building. As with new construction, vinyl siding that is a minimum of six (6) inches in width and beaded may be considered on an individual basis. The proposed siding material is 6.5 inches in width and meets that standard. Because the remainder of the house is already covered by vinyl siding and the addition will be set in several feet, the visual impact of the material will be minimal. Windows and Doors The original structure primarily features wooden 6/6 double hung sash windows, although the rear of the house also includes 1/1 and 4/4 sash windows. The addition is proposed to have two 6/6 double hung sash vinyl windows and a steel JELD-WEN French door, all on the rear elevation. These features will face the rear of the property and will not be visible from the street. The Guidelines state that new windows may be constructed of painted wood, metal clad or vinyl clad, and new doors are to be compatible with and relate to the door styles found in the Historic District. In previous cases where proposed windows and doors faced the rear of a property and were not visible from a right-of-way, the Historic Landmarks Commission has permitted the limited use of vinyl windows and steel doors as replacement materials. The most recent examples include properties located at 215 Grace Street, 216 Grace Street, and 217 Pearl Street, all of which are in close proximity to the subject property. In this case, the use of these materials will be further obscured by the proposed screened porch. While not generally appropriate in the District, the use of vinyl and steel will have no visual impact in this case. Porch The applicant proposes to replace a previously existing covered porch with a screened porch to be located on the east side of the proposed addition. The porch will share a roof with the addition and will feature treated wood posts to be painted black, charcoal colored screen, and a decorative wooden screen door that will also be painted black. Wooden stairs to access the porch are also proposed to be painted black. HLC2018-00025 November 8, 2018 Page 7 The Guidelines acknowledge that rear porches tend to be utilitarian, and the proposed location of this porch will limit its visibility from the street and its visual impact on the District. The form and materials proposed are generally appropriate to the District with the exception of the block foundation, which should be faced in red brick to match the house. Summary and Recommendations Staff has reviewed this application and found that the proposed rear addition and screened porch at 230 Pinner Street will utilize a design and materials that are complementary to the existing structure, and that they will not have a detrimental effect on the contributing resource or the District as a whole. Accordingly, based on the above findings-of-fact, staff recommends approval of the following actions requested by Certificate of Appropriateness, HLC2018-00025, with the conditions noted below: 1. Construct a single story frame addition at the rear (east side) of the property utilizing the following materials: • Roof – Gable, GAF Timberline Natural Shadow architectural shingles in charcoal • Siding – Carolina Beaded vinyl siding to match house • Rear door – Steel JELD-WEN French patio door with interior blinds, in white • Windows – Two Pella ThermaStar 6/6 double hung vinyl windows, in white • Foundation – Concrete block with red face brick to match house 2. Construct a screened porch on the east side of the proposed addition utilizing the following materials: • Roof – Gable, GAF Timberline Natural Shadow architectural shingles in charcoal • Posts – 6x6 treated wood, to be painted black • Screen – Charcoal in color • Door – Springview decorative wooden screen door, to be painted black to match posts • Foundation – Concrete block with red face brick to match house Attachments 230 PINNER STREET HLC2018-00025 230 PINNER STREET HLC2018-00025 230 PINNER STREET HLC2018-00025 230 PINNER STREET HLC2018-00025 230 PINNER STREET HLC2018-00025 230 PINNER STREET HLC2018-00025 230 PINNER STREET HLC2018-00025 230 PINNER STREET HLC2018-00025  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: November 8, 2018 Subject: REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS HLC2018- 00037, submitted by Jeffrey Townsend, property owner, for exterior alterations (installation of a rear covered patio and signage) 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 (2002) 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. Case History On March 15, 2018 a notice of violation was issued regarding the window signage and the wall sign that have been installed on the building. On May 17, 2018, a notice of violation was issued for the installation of a covered patio. Both of these violations stem from improvements being made without the benefit of a Certificate of Appropriateness being granted prior to the installation of the improvements. As is required, the applicant was given 90 days to file an HLC2018-00037 178 E. Washington Street November 8, 2018 Page 2 application for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for these items. In regard to the sign notice of violation, the item has been continued twice in court. As it pertains to the covered patio notice of violation, the property owner filed a COA application prior to the case being forwarded to court. It is important to note that in addition to the required COA, the applicant did not file the required building and sign permits applications for these features. 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 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. At the December 14, 2017 meeting of the Historic Landmarks Commission, the property owner received a COA for the following actions: 1. After-the-fact removal of the preexisting nonconforming vinyl siding and original wooden transom windows. 2. Install replacement powder coated aluminum transom windows with obscure glass that match the original transom windows in size, layout, pattern, dimensions, muntin configuration, and profile, utilizing an appropriate beige color from one of the approved paint palettes. (The painting of the transom a beige color was never completed). 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. (It appears this area was filled with metal flashing or similar material instead of approved wood). 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 November 2, 2018. Proposed Actions The applicant’s request consists of the following actions, after-the-fact: HLC2018-00037 178 E. Washington Street November 8, 2018 Page 3 1. Install a 55 square foot internally illuminated sign on the front of the building. 2. Install a 2 ½ square foot window sign on the front entry door of the building. 3. Install a 6 square foot window sign and a 8 ¼ square foot sign on the windows of the front elevation of the building. 4. Install a 2 ½ square foot window sign on the rear entry door of the building. 5. Install a 418 square foot wood covered patio on the rear of the building. 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. 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. HLC2018-00037 178 E. Washington Street November 8, 2018 Page 4 Applicable Regulations A. Suffolk Historic District Design Guidelines Chapter 1, Section F, Appropriate Design of Additions and Alterations for Buildings:  Changes to historic buildings should be appropriately designed to be compatible with the architecture and overall character of the historic district. Additions and alterations to buildings require careful design in order to preserve and strengthen the character of the district. To this end, repair and maintenance activity involving exterior materials, finishes, windows, doors, awnings, signage, fencing and landscaping should be carefully planned to avoid negatively affecting the district’s overall character. Chapter 6, Section E.1, Signage Design. 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. Chapter 6, Section E.2, Guidelines for Signage. Lighting:  Lighting of signage must be indirect. Signs which are internally illuminated are prohibited. Lighting of signage must be concealed and directed in such a way as to not allow light to be visible directly from the street, sidewalk, or other public way. Neon signs are allowed for window signage only when mounted on the interior side of the glass. Chapter 6, Section E.2, Guidelines for Signage. Wall-Mounted Signage:  Wall-Mounted Signage When attached to a facade, a wall mounted sign can consist of either attached or mounted simple letters or signboard. Within the Historic Urban Core wall-mounted signage should serve as the primary form of signage on mercantile buildings. The size of a wall-mounted sign is based on one square foot of sign area for every two feet of length of the primary façade, Sign letters cannot exceed 18 inches in height or 45 square feet in area. A wall sign should be attached to the building's primary façade above the first story display windows, typically above the awning but below the second floor windows. If the building is an institutional use then it is customary to attach the signage by individual letters in the frieze of the cornice. A wall-mounted sign is permissible in lieu of an awning sign. Wall-mounted signs for residential and religious buildings should be limited to a maximum of 12 square feet in size and should be mounted above or adjacent to the main entrance. Chapter 6, Section E.2, Guidelines for Signage. Window Signs:  Window signs are encouraged on storefront display windows where muntin patterns would not interfere with the text. It is recommended that window signs be restricted to first floor display windows and be constructed of letters fixed to either the inside or HLC2018-00037 178 E. Washington Street November 8, 2018 Page 5 outside of the glass. The size of a window sign is governed by the Unified Development Ordinance. However, in no case shall window signs exceed 10% of the total area of the window in which they are displayed. 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 Section 31-714 (n) of the Unified Development Ordinance establishes regulations for signs located in the Central Business District (CBD). Non-residential uses in the CBD are permitted to have wall signage not to exceed one (1) square foot in sign area for each one (1) foot of building frontage up to a maximum of one hundred (100) square feet. Staff Analysis As mentioned above the applicant is seeking after-the-fact approval for installation of one (1) 55 square foot, internally illuminated sign, four window signs, and a 19’ x 22’ covered patio at the rear of the building constructed of unpainted wood. The Historic District Design Guidelines offer specific guidelines on signage. Regardless of the appropriateness of a certain material or color, signs in the historic district are not permitted to be internally illuminated. The 55 square foot sign that has been constructed above the front entrance cannot be permitted, as it is internally illuminated. Additionally, this sign consists of a vinyl/plastic material, which the Guidelines state should not be used. Traditional materials such as wood or metal should be used and copy and logos should be painted on these materials. Lastly, in regard to the large, internally illuminated sign, the Unified Development Ordinance permits commercial uses in the CBD, Central Business District one square foot of sign area for each linear foot of building frontage. However, the Historic District Design Guidelines state that wall signs shall be restricted to one square foot for each two feet of the building’s primary façade. In this case, 178 East Washington Street has approximately 24 feet of frontage on East Washington Street, meaning the structure has 12 square feet of allowable wall sign area. The 55 square foot sign significantly exceeds the wall sign allowance for the structure. It is important to note that a sign located on a building immediately adjacent to the one in question and owned by the applicant, contains a nonconforming sign that is similar in size, material, and scale as the large internally illuminated sign the applicant is requesting to keep on the front of the building through this after-the-fact application. This sign, constructed on 180 E. Washington Street predates the East Washington expansion of the Suffolk Historic District (2002). This non-conforming sign is grandfathered and could not be approved under current regulations. HLC2018-00037 178 E. Washington Street November 8, 2018 Page 6 The applicant has installed two (2) separate, two and a half (2 ½) square foot window signs on the front and rear entry doors respectively. Additionally, the applicant has installed one six (6) square foot and one eight and a quarter (8 ¼) square foot window sign on the front elevation display windows. The window signs that have been installed are comprised of acrylic and are of colors that would comply with the approved color palette; however, wall signs are limited to 10 percent of total window area. In this case, according to information provided by the applicant, the building has a combined display window area of approximately 61 square feet. As such, the building is limited to 6.1 square feet of window signage. The currently installed signage exceeds this amount. Staff recommends that the applicant apply for new signs that comply with all applicable regulations. The last component of this request includes the after-the-fact approval of a 19’ x 22’ covered patio that has been constructed at the rear of the building of pressure treated, unpainted wood. The structure includes a flat TPO (Thermoplastic Polyolefin) membrane roof that is not visible from the public right-of-way. Additionally, the covered patio has a metal gutter and one downspout, both white in color. The rear elevation does not have any public street frontage, however; it does abut a City owned parking lot and is visible from Franklin Street, which is located approximately 80’ from where the covered patio has been constructed. Chapter 1, Section F. of The Historic District Design Guidelines state that “Additions and alterations to buildings require careful design in order to preserve and strengthen the character of the district.” Specifically, attention should be given to what types of materials are used on additions to ensure that they are compatible with the traditional materials of which historic buildings are composed. Mercantile buildings in the district primarily consist of brick structures with wood trim and metal accents. While wood is an appropriate accent, it should not be a primary building material on commercial buildings, as is the case with the covered patio that has been constructed. Additionally, Chapter 4, Section F.2.b. of the Guidelines state that wood features in the historic district should be kept primed and painted, which the covered patio is not. Furthermore, the wood used in the construction of the patio is inconsistent with the type of material that would have been used on commercial patio areas in the district. Unpainted pressure treated wood, as used in the construction of the covered patio, is typical of more modern, suburban residential construction and is inappropriate on contributing commercial structures. A combination of brick and metal with creative cover options, such as shade sails or other cloth materials, would be more appropriate to create a covered patio area. In July of 2017, the Historic Landmarks Commission approved an outdoor seating area for the Brick and Mortar Brewing Company that is located a block from the building in question. The approved Certificate of Appropriateness resulted in a covered patio with painted steel columns with brick veneer bases and an overhead shade system consisting of steel cables and sail cloth shades. A covered patio consisting of materials similar to the approval described above would be appropriate to the structure and the district as the covered patio that has been constructed does not align with the standards identified within the District Guidelines. HLC2018-00037 178 E. Washington Street November 8, 2018 Page 7 Summary and Recommendations Based on the previous findings-of-fact, staff recommends denial of the following actions requested by Certificate of Appropriateness, HLC2018-00037: 1. Install a 55 square foot internally illuminated sign on the front of the building. 2. Install a 2 ½ square foot window sign on the front entry door of the building. 3. Install a 6 square foot window sign and a 8 ¼ square foot sign on the windows of the front elevation of the building. 4. Install a 2 ½ square foot window sign on the rear entry door of the building. 5. Install a 418 square foot wood covered patio on the rear of the building. Attachments cc: Jeffrey Townsend, property owner HLC2018-00037  ZONING / LAND USE MAP HLC2018-037 ST E RCE C OM M ST K LIN FRA N CBD E WAS 34G18(6)*5 H I N GT O N ST T CE S M ER C OM User Name: bsmith Date: 10/23/2018 s  HLC2018-00037 178 E. Washington Street Subject Property Subject Property HLC2018-00037 178 E. Washington Street HLC2018-00037 178 E. Washington Street HLC2018-00037 178 E. Washington Street HLC2018-00037 178 E. Washington Street HLC2018-00037 178 E. Washington Street Patio Examples Zoning Case Activity Report November 2018 PROPERTY OWNER(S) LOCATION VIOLATION(S) JUDGEMENT INSPECTOR Gregory Mitchell 131 Clay St Zoning- Installed roof with no COA Court Matt 12/06/2018 Jeffrey Townsend 178 E. Washington St Window signs and window tint, no Court Matt COA 10/04/2018 Jeffrey Townsend 178 E. Washington St Covered patio without COA NOV issued Matt 5/17/2018 Rick & Catherine 217 Pearl St New windows and fence without COA Nov issued Matt Lathrop 10/4/2018