Historic Landmarks Commission Packets

City of Suffolk HISTORIC LANDMARKS COMMISSION February 14, 2019 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, February 13, 2019 (757) 514-4060 PREPARED BY THE CITY OF SUFFOLK DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF PLANNING  AGENDA Historic Landmarks Commission Meeting Thursday, February 14, 2019 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 HLC2019-00001, submitted by Gerry L. Jones, applicant, on behalf of the City of Suffolk, property owner, for demolition of a commercial building and associated site improvements on property located at 108 Commerce Street. The property is further identified as Zoning Map 34G18, Block A, Parcels 239, 240, 241*241A, 242, and 243, 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 November 8, 2018 9:00 A.M. The regular meeting of the Historic Landmarks Commission was held on Thursday, November 8, 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 Kevin Wyne, Principal Planner Larry Riddick Grace Heagy, Planner I Oliver Hobbs Connie Blair, Planning Technician Edward King Vivian Turner The meeting was called to order by Chairman Hobbs. The roll was called by Ms. Jones and the 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 HLC2018-00025, 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. The first public hearing item was introduced by Chairman Hobbs, followed by a staff report from Grace Heagy, Planner I. Ms. Heagy stated the application is a request to construct a single story frame addition and screened porch at the rear of a contributing residence in the Historic Conservation Overlay District. The subject property is located at 230 Pinner Street, which is at the edge of both the original 1987 National Register District and the Historic Conservation Overlay District. Ms. Heagy noted 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 block includes wide landscaped spaces between larger high style houses on the west side and a number of medium-sized and a few more modest sized houses on the east side. Architectural styles represented include Queen Anne, Colonial Revival, Tudor Revival, and Vernacular. Overall, this section of Pinner Street is largely intact and retains a strongly cohesive historic impression. Ms. Heagy stated the subject property features a contributing structure constructed around 1900. It is a symmetrical 2-story, 3-bay Vernacular frame dwelling with a center gable, standing seam metal roof, and Italianate cornice. While located among more affluent stylistic dwellings, including the original Pinner house directly across the street, this house is noted to be similar in design to the working-class structures on Holladay and Pine Streets. The front of the house mostly retains its historic appearance, with the exception of the full-width porch expansion approved in 2004. At the back of the property, there have been previous changes and additions which are primarily rear facing and not visible from the street. In June 2017, the property was damaged by fire and a previously existing covered porch was destroyed as a result. Ms. Heagy stated 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. Because the existing structure and the previously existing porch are non-conforming in regard to their required setback and impervious surface ratio, any new construction will not be permitted to exceed the previous footprint. The specific location will be verified by zoning review prior to construction and is not under consideration today. Ms. Heagy explained that the proposed addition and porch extend from the portion of the rear elevation where the porch previously existed. The roof will be continuous between the addition and the porch, with a vinyl sided gable end proposed above the porch at the rear. The form and directional expression of the proposed addition and porch follow the original structure, and the gable roof is compatible with the existing roof. As a whole, the addition and porch are appropriate in scale and will be set back approximately 6.7 feet from the property line behind the main structure, which will reduce their visual impact from the street. Ms. Heagy reviewed the materials proposed for the roof, siding, porch, windows, and doors, noting that the materials proposed are modern but complementary to the existing materials. The Guidelines acknowledge that rear porches tend to be utilitarian, and the proposed location of this porch will limit its visibility and visual impact on the District. While not generally appropriate in the District, the form and materials proposed are appropriate to this addition and the use of vinyl and steel will have no visual impact in this case. Ms. Heagy noted that the applicant proposes a low cinder block foundation for both the addition and the porch. Under the Guidelines, cinder block is specifically noted as an inappropriate material and should be avoided; therefore, staff recommends that the proposed block foundation be faced in red brick to match the existing materials. In conclusion, Ms. Heagy stated 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 will not have a detrimental effect on the contributing resource or the District as a whole. As such, staff recommends approval with the conditions noted in the staff report. The public hearing was opened and Mr. Amos Riddick, owner and applicant, spoke in favor of the application. There being no other speakers, the public hearing was closed. Chairman Hobbs asked for discussion from the Commissioners. Commissioner Riddick stated his belief that doing this work would be an enhancement to the property and made a motion to approve staff’s 2 recommendation as presented. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Turner and approved by a recorded vote of 7-0. 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. The second public hearing item was introduced by Chairman Hobbs, followed by a staff report from Kevin Wyne, Principal Planner. Mr. Wyne stated the after-the-fact application is for exterior alterations to include the installation of a rear covered patio and signage at property located at 178 East Washington Street. The subject property is located on East Washington Street between Commerce and Franklin Streets, making it a part of the 2002 East Washington Street Historic District of the Suffolk Historic Conservation Overlay District. According to the National Register of Historic Places Inventory, the most common building form noted in this district is brick-fronted Italianate or Vernacular style commercial structures. These commercial structures usually include large show windows and flat roofs, many of which have ornate parapets or central recessed entranceways. Mr. Wyne stated that 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. The applicant is seeking after-the-fact approval for the installation of a 55 square foot internally illuminated sign on the front of the building, a 2 ½ square foot window sign on the front entry door of the building, a 6 square foot window sign, and an 8 ¼ square foot window sign on the display windows on the front of the building, a 2 ½ square foot window sign at the rear of the building, and a 418 square foot unpainted wood covered patio on the rear of the building. Mr. Wyne noted that two notices of violation were issued for this property, one for the signs and one for the installation of a covered patio. He added that, in addition to the required COA, the applicant did not file the required building permit or sign permit applications for these features. Additionally, the property has received two additional COAs for exterior work from the HLC, both in 2017. Some of the approved changes included storefront improvements and the replacement of rear windows and a rear door. Mr. Wyne reviewed the relevant Historic District Design Guidelines on signage, noting that internal illumination is not permitted. 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 is not to be used. Mr. Wyne also noted that Guidelines allow only one foot of sign area per two feet of linear building frontage. 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 to the large internally illuminated sign the applicant is requesting to keep on the front of the building through 3 this after-the-fact application. This non-conforming sign predates the East Washington expansion of the Suffolk Historic District and is grandfathered. It could not be approved under current regulations. 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 sign 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, window 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 white metal gutter and downspout. 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 unpainted pressure treated wood used 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. Mr. Wyne noted some examples of appropriate covered or enclosed patios throughout the District. In conclusion, Mr. Wyne stated that, based on the previous findings-of-fact as noted in staff’s report, staff recommends denial of the after-the-fact request. The public hearing was opened and Mr. Jeffrey Townsend, owner and applicant, spoke in favor of the items he has already installed, noting the similarities of the signs to the ones he used next door and expressing concerns over the cost to replace them. The Commissioners inquired about the need to get permits for signs and whether the applicant knew he needed them. Staff noted that an application was filed for the neighboring sign in 2011, which allowed it to be refaced using the existing sign frame but was not to be internally illuminated. Commissioner Riddick asked staff to confirm that none of the signage on the subject property is appropriate or 4 grandfathered, and that appropriate signage has not been requested. Ms. Jones clarified that the signs on the subject property are new and that the one that was grandfathered and refaced is next door. The Commission also discussed the covered patio and whether it could be made more compliant with the Guidelines. Following this discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner Darden to deny the application as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Riddick and approved by a recorded vote of 7-0. OLD BUSINESS: Ms. Jones informed the HLC that a notice of an appeal was received in regard to Certificate of Appropriateness HLC2018-00031 for 119-125 East Washington Street. They are appealing the requirement to use vinyl clad windows in a sunroom on the second floor and on the west and south elevations. They are not appealing the front windows which they agreed to retain. They are also disagreeing with the interpretation of material requirements in the Guidelines. Ms. Jones stated that the appeal is expected to be scheduled for the December 5, 2018, City Council meeting. STAFF REPORTS: Enforcement Update: Donald Bennett, Property Maintenance Official, reported on the following properties: • 124 W. Finney Avenue – NOV issued • 134 W. Washington Street – Court case dismissed, owner in compliance • 118 Pinner Street – Fined $900.00 • 342 N. Main Street – NOV issued • 113 St. James Avenue – 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 – Court case extended to 12/6/2018 • 178 E. Washington Street – Court case extended to 12/6/2018 • 217 Pearl Street – NOV issued 10/4/2018 Administrative Approvals: Ms. Jones provided a brief report on the five administrative COAs approved since the last HLC meeting in October 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 staff To approve with staff recommendations as recommendations as presented presented 1st: Riddick 1st: Darden November 8, 2018 2nd: Turner 2nd: Riddick HLC2018-25 HLC2018-37 ATTENDANCE VOTE: 7-0 VOTE: 7-0 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 X X King, Edward L. X X X Riddick, Larry X X X Turner, Vivian X X X  CITY OF SUFFOLK 442 W. WASHINGTON STREET, P.O. BOX 1858, SUFFOLK, VIRGINIA 23439-1858 PHONE: (757) 514-4060 FAX: (757) 514-4099 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Division of Planning To: Historic Landmarks Commission From: Grace Heagy, Planner I Date: February 14, 2019 Subject: REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS HLC2019- 00001, submitted by Gerry L. Jones, applicant, on behalf of the City of Suffolk, property owner, for demolition of a commercial building and associated site improvements on property located at 108 Commerce Street. The property is further identified as Zoning Map 34G18, Block A, Parcels 239, 240, 241*241A, 242, and 243, 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 at 108 Commerce Street within the East Washington Street District (2002) of the Suffolk Historic Conservation Overlay District. According to the National Register of Historic Places-Inventory Nomination Form, the 2002 boundary expansion to the Suffolk Historic District is a continuous area encompassing a large number of commercial buildings dating from the early 20th Century, small enclaves of residential buildings, several warehouses, banks, service stations, two depots, and one courthouse. Commercial, industrial, and transportation-related buildings surround the residential neighborhoods. The most common building form noted in this area is brick-fronted Italianate or Vernacular style commercial structures. According to the National Register of Historic Places-Inventory Nomination Form, the subject property features a non-contributing commercial structure built between 1999 and 2000; however, the Assessor’s office records indicates that it was built earlier. It consists of a solid poured concrete foundation and has a wood frame structural system with stucco. The 1 story commercial structure features a side gable roof clad with asphalt shingle. HLC2019-00001 February 14, 2019 Page 2 The subject property formerly served as the Office of Real Estate Assessor for the City of Suffolk, which was relocated to the Suffolk City Hall at 442 West Washington Street in 2014. The non-contributing commercial structure is located behind a row of early 20th century commercial buildings and is largely surrounded by parking lots that can be accessed from either Commerce Street or Franklin Street. Public Notice Public notice of this meeting was published in the newspaper and notices were mailed to adjacent property owners. Proposed Action The applicant’s request consists of the following actions: 1. Demolish the existing non-contributing, 4,686 square foot, single story structure. 2. Remove existing curb closest to the north-west corner of the building and the retaining wall closest to the east side of the building. 3. Expand the existing parking lot in entire area of demolition to accommodate additional parking spaces. 4. Reconfigure existing parking spaces in the northern and southern corner of parking lot along Franklin Street. 5. Installation of six (6) new light fixtures within the parking lot. 6. Install landscaping within the parking lot. Condition Statement The application included a hazardous materials inspection report, submitted by Applied Laboratory Services. The report was conducted to investigate the overall condition of the building in regard to hazardous materials. The report states that no suspect asbestos containing materials were identified in the building that would affect the proposed demolition process, and that there was no lead-based paint detected on the painted surfaces. Surrounding Characteristics The surrounding properties consist of contributing commercial and residential buildings constructed in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s. The subject property at 108 Commerce Street sits at the edge of the 2002 East Washington Street District, adjacent to the original 1987 Suffolk Historic District. 100 Commerce Street - Contributing 1-story commercial building, circa 1926-1940. 174 East Washington Street- Contributing 1-story commercial building, circa 1926-1940. 178 East Washington Street- Contributing 1-story commercial building, circa 1926-1940. 180 East Washington Street- Contributing 2-story commercial building, circa 1920-1925 HLC2019-00001 February 14, 2019 Page 3 186 East Washington Street- Contributing 1-story, commercial building, circa 1926-1940. 188 East Washington Street- Contributing 2-story, Colonial Revival style, commercial building, circa 1920. 130 Commerce Street- Non-contributing 1-story commercial building, circa 1964. 133 Bank Street- Contributing 2-story, Vernacular, residential structure, circa 1875. 137 Bank Street- Contributing 3-story, Second Empire, residential structure, circa 1880. 112 Franklin Street- Contributing 2-story, Vernacular, residential structure, circa 1890. 114 Franklin Street- Contributing 2-story, Queen Anne, residential structure, circa 1890. 116 Franklin Street- Contributing 2-story, Italianate, residential structure, circa 1882. Applicable Regulations and Analysis A. Suffolk Downtown Master Plan 1. Chapter 3 Master Plan, Section Redevelopment Opportunities, The Courthouse Site – Festival & Market Square: The courthouse parking lot is well positioned to be a potential location for community events. This site has the greatest potential to become a new event venue and offer the infrastructure – a market shed, stage, bathrooms, and storage – that can be used to incubate new retail, new events and become the city’s home for providing entertainment and activates downtown. The Judge/Sheriff parking would experience no changes, while the remainder of the parking would experience a loss of 40 spaces. The concept explores demolishing the former Real Estate Assessor’s building across Commerce Street, which would help regain any lost spaces. 2. Chapter 3 Master Plan, Section Redevelopment Opportunities, The Courthouse Site – Festival & Market Square, Festival & Market Square Program: (D) New parking area (removal of the former Real Estate Assessor’s building) B. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) 1. Section 31-413(g)(7), Approval of Major Action by the HLC (i) Razing, demolishing or moving of a designated landmark or contributing building or accessory. C. Suffolk Historic District Design Guidelines HLC2019-00001 February 14, 2019 Page 4 1. Chapter 1, Section E, Categories of Significance with the Historic Conservation Overlay District, Contributing Structures: Historic or non-historic structures contribute to the overall historic character of the historic district through the compatibility of their design, character, scale, material, and detailing. They are not, however, significant enough to be designated as landmarks. 2. Chapter 8, Section A., Background: Historic buildings are irreplaceable community assets and once they are gone, they are gone forever. With each succeeding demolition or removal, the integrity and character of the district is further eroded. Often the new structure is seldom an attribute to the historic character of the district. Furthermore, if an historic building is moved to a site that is very different from its original site, it could face increased threats to its integrity. Consequently, since the action of demolition or removal of an historic structure cannot be reversed, the decision must be carefully considered and all alternatives explored. 3. Chapter 8, Section C., Guidelines for the Consideration of Demolishing or Moving Buildings:  Is the structure of architectural significance? Does the building contribute to the character of the Historic Conservation Overlay District?  Is the structure of historical significance?  Is the building or structure of such old or uncommon design, texture or scarce material that it could not be reproduced or could be reproduced only with great difficulty and expense?  Is the relocation of the building or structure, or a portion thereof, a preferable alternative to demolition?  Would the proposed moving or demolition potentially adversely affect other historic buildings located within the Historic Conservation Overlay District?  Would the proposed moving or demolition potentially adversely affect the character of the Historic Conservation Overlay District? Staff Analysis The structure in question is a one story commercial style office building which measures approximately 4,686 square feet in size. As outlined above, the commercial building is noted on the 2002 East Washington Street District’s nomination form as dating from 1999-2000; however, city data lists the date of construction as 1961. At the time of nomination, it would not have been contributing based on age, but it would be considered contributing based on age today. The nomination form notes that the non-contributing structures in the area lack stylistic characteristics, as is the case with the subject building. Based on the design, features, and materials, it has been determined that the structure does not contribute to the architectural character or integrity of the District. As mentioned in Chapter 8, Section A. of the Suffolk Historic District Design Guidelines, “Historic buildings are irreplaceable community assets and once they are gone, they are gone HLC2019-00001 February 14, 2019 Page 5 forever. With each succeeding demolition or removal, the integrity and character of the District is further eroded.” It is also important to look at the character of the neighborhood and/or block in question. As such, the property in question is located on the back side of a strip of contributing commercial structures along East Washington Street that date from the early to mid- 20th century. While the adjacent structures are generally vernacular with limited ornamentation, they are a cohesive group of similar size and scale that present a unified block face. The later Assessor’s building is not compatible due to its proximity to the rear of these buildings, which impedes access, and to its gable roof, which makes it appear out of scale with its neighbors. The subject building fronts on Commerce Street, adjacent to a rear parking lot that provides parking for a courthouse and retail businesses along North Main Street. The contributing residential properties facing the lot along Franklin Street are located within the Original Suffolk District and consist of Italianate-style houses. The properties at 114 and 116 Franklin Street are some of the oldest homes constructed along Franklin Street. It can be determined that the Assessors building was not a key feature to the neighborhood during the period of significance, and the demolition of the building should have little to no impact on the neighborhood. Chapter 8, Section C. provides a series of criteria in regards to the consideration of demolishing or moving contributing structures. Below, please find the criteria that apply to this specific case:  Is the structure of architectural significance? Does the building contribute to the character of the Historic Conservation Overlay District? The primary structure itself is not architecturally significant and includes no architectural details or discernable style. The structure is fairly modest in size and scale, and does not date from the period of significance for the surrounding Districts.  Is the structure of historical significance? The structure is not associated with any historically significant purpose, event, or person.  Is the building or structure of such old or uncommon design, texture or scarce material that it could not be reproduced or could be reproduced only with great difficulty and expense? As mentioned above, the commercial building is fairly modest from an architectural standpoint and could be easily reproduced utilizing like materials. The primary materials include a wood frame, stucco, and an asphalt roof, all of which are readily available materials. Furthermore, the commercial building represents a common building style that would have been frequently observed at its time of construction.  Is the relocation of the building or structure, or a portion, thereof, preferable alteration to demolition? HLC2019-00001 February 14, 2019 Page 6 The structure is a non-contributing commercial building and does not include any features or history that should be preserved through relocation.  Would the proposed moving or demolition potentially adversely affect other historic buildings located within the Historic Conservation Overlay District? The proposed demolition would not affect other historic buildings that are located in the area. The non-contributing structure is located behind a strip of contributing commercial structures and adjacent to a rear parking lot. It is visible to the contributing residential structures on Franklin Street but is not architecturally compatible with their period of significance.  Would the proposed moving or demolition potentially adversely affect the character of the Historic Conservation Overlay District? The proposed demolition of the structure is projected to have a minimal impact on the District as a whole due to the fact that the structure lacks any architectural features or historical significance that enhances the District. In addition to the more specific questions contained within the Guidelines above, more general questions relate to the feasibility of relocating the building elsewhere in the District and the potential impact of the building’s demolition on other historic structures in the District as well as its impact on the District as a whole. Due to the prior use of the building relocating to another place 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. The applicant also proposes to improve the existing parking lot with additional spaces, new lighting, and landscaping. The demolition of the old Assessor’s building and the expansion and improvement of the parking lot is recommended as part of the Suffolk Downtown Master Plan’s proposed Festival & Market Square to help regain any spaces that may be lost in the Courthouse parking lot. Additionally, the proposed enhancements to the surrounding parking lot will provide additional lighting and landscaping that is compatible with existing fixtures in the District, and will improve the overall environment in the area. 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 HLC2019-00001: 1. Demolish the existing non-contributing, 4,686 square foot, single story structure. Dispose of all debris properly. 2. Remove existing curb closest to the north-west corner of the building and the retaining wall closest to the east side of the building. HLC2019-00001 February 14, 2019 Page 7 3. Expand the existing parking lot in entire area of demolition to accommodate additional parking spaces as shown on the proposed site plan. Pave area with asphalt. 4. Installation of six (6) light fixtures as shown in the proposed image. 5. Install landscaping within the parking lot. All landscaping must comply with Section 31- 603 of the Unified Development Ordinance. 6. Any additional improvements shall require a Certificate of Appropriateness. 7. All required permits shall be obtained from the City of Suffolk.  MEADE RIVER RIV E R Suffolk Historic & Cultural Overlay District & T LAKE PO IN NANSEMOND FORT National Register Historic Districts JONES E DUMVILL BU TL ER EW AL LE N VI K PAR ER DARDEN RIV D HAR ORC G O ND KIN N EM NS 58 NA TO O SB WE STE RN LE XING £ ¤ TH ND RO KA HLA ER HIG IN E FOREST AZA LEA CHUR H IL L WOOD CH DOG CONSTANCE HLC2019-00001 WOODS DAY CONS TA NC E AN MA H PRENTIS LEGEND MA IN THIRD NEW ! ( HLC2019-00001AddressPoint OAKLAND P OR T Suffolk Historic Conservation Overlay PINE COLL HIL L E NIA Historic District Boundaries SE CO ND E GE CEN EU G DISTRICTS TTLE TRA L FRE E CEDAR HILL DISTRICT (2006) M AS BU TE ON PITCHKE FIRS T BR EW ER EAST WASHINGTON STREET DISTRICT (2002) PE ND ER CHE STNUT OAK HISTORIC OVERLAY LE D NORTH NORTH MAIN STREET DISTRICT EXTENSION (1998) A R MARK E ACE T PINN CLA E Y TE R FIN N EY ORIGINAL SUFFOLK DISTRICT (1987) R HE NLEY SPRING AY SOMERTON HISTORIC DISTRICT (2008) HOL CE GRA L AD SUFFOLK DISTRICT EXPANSION (2004) PE A R L A E ATOG MOOR WEST END DISTRICT (2004) GITTIN WEST END DISTRICT EXPANSION (2004) GS SA R BA N BR OA D MILITARY K SO UTH RC E K L IN CO MME JA CK SO N P FRA BIS HO ! ( N JA MES LE E S CA US EY SM ITH RLE N N&W Y A RT LINDE N Y BO S LE CHA CHE LI Ë RRY WA LIB S SA INT HIN E EL EY NS AR O PO GT P LA R ON C WE LLO MA RYLA ND HA LL WIL SON FAIR GR EN NT Y OUN DS CUL AD COU IL RO S VIRG IN IA RA L OD TY N EPO L K AR AD A 1:10,000 M S CED GA N FA C JOH 1 inch = 833 feet H MOR N TO R YO R S ON FOU RT K FAY ET MA D Y TE IS ON SPRUCE User Name: bsmith Date: 1/24/2019  ZONING / LAND USE MAP HLC2019-00001 ST AI N PEA R L ST NM T BAN CE S K ST GR A ST 34G18(A)*243 E RCE 34G18(A)*242 C OM M ST 34G18(A)*241*241A K LIN FRA 34G18(A)*240 N 34G18(A)*239 R ST PINN E WAS H I N GT E O N ST T s CE S AVE M ER N&W C OM AVE HALL User Name: bsmith Date: 1/24/2019 Zoning Case Activity Report February 2019 PROPERTY OWNER(S) LOCATION VIOLATION(S) JUDGEMENT INSPECTOR Zoning- Installed roof with no Gregory Mitchell 131 Clay St Fined $200 Matt COA Window signs and window tint, Court Jeffrey Townsend 178 E. Washington St Matt no COA 2/7/2019 Court Jeffrey Townsend 178 E. Washington St Covered patio without COA Matt Pending Shore Breeze, LLC NOV sent c/o LaShawn 216 Grace St Exceeding Scope of COA Matt 2/5/19 Howard