Historic Landmarks Commission Packets

City of Suffolk HISTORIC LANDMARKS COMMISSION October 10, 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, October 9, 2019 (757) 514-4060 PREPARED BY THE CITY OF SUFFOLK DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF PLANNING  AGENDA Historic Landmarks Commission Meeting Thursday, October 10, 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 HLC2019-00035, submitted by William Cover, applicant and property owner, for exterior improvements at property located at 109 Bosley Avenue. The property is further identified as Zoning Map 34G16(6)C7*8*9*2A+, Suffolk Voting Borough, zoned RM, Residential Medium zoning district, and HC, Historic Conservation Overlay District. 2. Request for Certificate of Appropriateness HLC2019-00038, submitted by Ben Clay, applicant and property owner, for exterior material alterations on property located at 130 Brewer Avenue. The property is further identified as Zoning Map 34G17(2)B*18*19*20, 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 b. Zoning 2. Administrative Approvals VII. Adjournment  MINUTES HISTORIC LANDMARKS COMMISSION September 12, 2019 9:00 A.M. The regular meeting of the Historic Landmarks Commission was held on Thursday, September 12, 2019, 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: George Bailey Claire Jones, Secretary William Bissell Sean Dolan, Assistant City Attorney Susan Coley Grace Braziel, Planner I Mary Austin Darden Connie Blair, Planning Technician Merritt Draper Oliver Hobbs Edward King Larry Riddick 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 HLC2019-00032, submitted by Amanda M. Short, applicant and property owner, for a new exterior opening at property located at 152 S. Main Street. The property is further identified as Zoning Map 34G18, Block A, Parcels 287A, Suffolk Voting Borough, zoned CBD, Central Business District, and HC, Historic Conservation Overlay District. The public hearing item was introduced by Chairman Hobbs, followed by a staff report from Grace Braziel, Planner I. Mrs. Braziel stated that the subject property is part of the East Washington Street District of the Suffolk Historic Conservation Overlay District. It received a Certificate of Appropriateness in 2018 for exterior improvements, including painting, replacement of non-contributing wooden storefront, replacement of a rear entry door, and installation of a new shed. The subject property features a contributing structure built between 1914 and 1920 in the commercial style. It has a flat roof with a stepped parapet and is approximately 145 feet in length. There is one door at the front and one door at the rear of the building, which allows it to accommodate 49 occupants. The applicant is proposing to create a new doorway and install a new fire door along the southern elevation of the building to allow an increase in the occupancy load. This is necessary because the 2015 Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code requires two means of egress for every 75 feet of travel distance and the current doors do not both meet egress requirements. Chapter 4 of the Historic District Design Guidelines states changing the number, location, or size of doors should be avoided. In addition, the design of new doors should be compatible with existing doors or others in the District. Mrs. Braziel explained that fire doors are used elsewhere in the District, but are typically found on rear elevations. In this case, the southern elevation is only partially visible from South Main Street, and because of internal separation is the only option to provide additional access in a low visibility location. To install this door, only the necessary masonry will be removed and the new door is proposed to be painted to match the wall to minimize its visual impact to the Historic District. As such, staff recommends approval of this request with the conditions noted in the staff report. The public hearing was opened. There being no speakers in favor or in opposition of the application, the public hearing was closed. The Commission briefly discussed whether there were windows or doors previously on either wall of the building and if there would be signage on the door. The applicant responded to these concerns, noting there was no door on the south elevation and no signage is proposed. Following this discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner Riddick to approve staff’s recommendations as presented. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Turner and approved by a recorded vote of 9-0. OLD BUSINESS: Commissioner Riddick asked for the status of the Guidelines update. Ms. Jones stated that several chapters of the new standards have been completed and comments have been sent to the consultants. The final public meeting is anticipated in October and the Commission will be notified when a date is set. STAFF REPORTS: Enforcement Update: Donald Bennett, Property Maintenance Official, reported on the following properties:  118 Wellons Street – Court case scheduled to be heard on 10-3-19  222 Clay Street – Court case heard on 9-5-19; court case continued until 10-3-19  179 E. Washington Street – Court case heard on 9-5-19; court case continued until 10-3-19  131 Clay Street – Still working with new property owner to submit an application for a COA  321 E. Washington Street – Expect to remove collapsed shed portion the week of 9-16-19 Zoning Update: Matthew Levy, Zoning Inspector II, reported on the following properties: 2   178 E. Washington Street – Court pending 11-7-19  131 Clay Street – NOV sent; applicant working with staff to get COA approved for the building  237 Pinner Street – Installing fence without permits Administrative Approvals: Ms. Jones provided a brief report on the one administrative COA approved since the last HLC meeting in August. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. 3  HISTORIC LANDMARKS COMMISSION Motion: To approve with Motion: staff’s recommendations as presented 1st: Riddick 1st: September 12, 2019 2nd: Turner 2nd: HLC2019-00032 ATTENDANCE 9-0 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT ABSENT YES NO YES NO Bailey, George X X Bissell, William N. X X Coley, Susan 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 X Turner, Vivian X X  CITY OF SUFFOLK 442 W. WASHINGTON ST., 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 Braziel, Planner I Date: October 10, 2019 Subject: REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS HLC2019- 00035, submitted by William Cover, applicant and property owner, for exterior improvements at property located at 109 Bosley Avenue. The property is further identified as Zoning Map 34G16(6), Block C, Parcel 7*8*9*2A+, Suffolk Voting Borough, zoned RM, Residential Medium zoning district, and HC, Historic Conservation Overlay District. STAFF REPORT Overview of the Subject Property and Surrounding Area The subject property is located at 109 Bosley Avenue and is part of the West End Expansion of the Suffolk Historic Conservation Overlay District. The majority of the buildings in this neighborhood date from the last decade of the nineteenth century through the first four decades of the twentieth century. The architectural styles in the area include Vernacular, Italianate, Queen Anne, Colonial Revival, Classical Revival, Tudor Revival, Bungalow/Craftsman, and American foursquare. According to the National Register of Historic Places, the subject property was constructed circa 1930 and represents one of the Colonial Revival residential homes described above. The building features a brick stretcher bond structural system with a gable slate tile roof and 4 chimneys. The property also has a non-contributing detached garage located in the rear yard. The property fronts on both Gittings Street and Bosley Avenue. Case History The subject property received a Certificate of Appropriateness in April of 2019 for exterior improvements relating to the replacement and expansion of the concrete apron around the pool, replacement of rotted section of fence with like material, and the removal of a tree. HLC2019-00035 October 10, 2019 Page 2 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 October 04, 2019. Proposed Actions The applicant’s request includes the following actions: 1. Install a wood paneled fence, 6’ tall in height, to replace the existing lattice and chain link fencing across a portion of the western property line, connecting to the existing 6’ wood fence on the northern property line. 2. Install a 4.5’ tall aluminum fence across a portion of the southern property line to extend around the pool, connecting to the proposed 6’ tall wooden fence along the western property line. 3. Replace the wooden lattice fencing and gate extending across the driveway with a 4.5’ tall aluminum fence and gate across the driveway connecting to the primary structure. 4. Replace only the side porch composite shingle roof with a new composite shingle roof to match the existing. 5. Remove a large limb from the pine tree located along the western property line. Condition Statement A condition statement was not submitted for this request. Surrounding Characteristics A detailed description of adjacent and nearby properties is provided below. 101 Bosley Avenue – A non-contributing 1 story residential building that consists of a wood frame and brick veneer structural system. The home was constructed between the years 1950-1965. 112 Bosley Avenue – A contributing 2.5 story residential building constructed between the years 1925-1940. This Colonial Revival home features a 6-course American Bond brick foundation and structural system. 706 Gittings Street – A contributing 2.5 Residential building constructed circa 1929. This Colonial Revival structure features a solid brick stretcher bond foundation and structural system with a gable roof. 707 Gittings Street – A non-contributing commercial building located outside of the Historic District. HLC2019-00035 October 10, 2019 Page 3 705 W. Washington Street – A non-contributing 1 story commercial building constructed between the years 1980-1995. This Colonial Revival structure features a brick veneer structural system with an asphalt shingle roof. Site Modifications As noted above, the back section of fence along the western property line is proposed to be a standard privacy fence consisting of 6 foot tall vertical wood panels to replace the existing lattice and chain link fencing. Along the southern property line an aluminum gate is proposed to replace the existing lattice fencing, connecting to the proposed 6’ tall wood fence. The aluminum fence is to extend around the pool to enclose it. The existing lattice fence and gate extending across the drive way is proposed to be replaced with a 4.5’ tall aluminum fence and driveway gate. In addition, the applicant is proposing to replace the composite shingle roof only on the side porch with a new composite shingle roof to match the existing. The request to remove a large limb from the pine tree along the western property line cannot be reviewed as part of this application because the tree is located on the neighbor’s property and does not belong to the applicant. Applicable Regulations A. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO)  Section 31-413(g)(7), Approval of Major Action by the HLC (viii) Landscaping which involves major changes in grade or walls and fences more than three-and-one-half feet in height.  Section 31-413(g)(5), Approval of Certain Minor Actions by the Administrator (ii) Application or use of exterior materials of the same type, color or texture of those already in use which will substantially cover one or more sides of the structure but which will not result in destruction or replacement of original exterior material. This provision applies to roofing as well as siding. B. Suffolk Historic District Design Guidelines 1. Chapter 5, Section E.2 Decorative Fences: Decorative fences are usually used where fences will be visible from public streets in front and side yards to accent the yard and provide some degree of enclosure. Decorative fences can be made of wrought iron and wood pickets, with or without brick piers. No fence located in any required yard adjacent to a street which creates a solid screen may exceed 30-inches in height. If such fence is uniformly 50% or more opened, it may be erected to a maximum height of 48-inches. Side yard and rear yard fencing not visible from a public way can be a maximum of six (6) feet as allowed by the Unified Development Ordinance. Plastic and vinyl fencing is not allowed unless specifically approved by the Historic Landmark Commission. Chain link fencing and other wire fencing are prohibited. HLC2019-00035 October 10, 2019 Page 4 2. Chapter 5, Section E.4 Tall Screen Fencing: Tall screen fencing is usually for side and rear yards where it is not visible from a public way to enclose the yard for security, privacy, and/or for restricting pets. These fences can be made of wood, brick, wrought iron, or stucco (when stucco is used for the primary dwelling). Tall fences should be constructed of wood slats of at least ¾” thickness to avoid warping and provide adequate durability. Where wood fencing is used, it shall be painted or stained an opaque color. Chain link fencing and other wire fencing is prohibited. Staff Analysis The property has an existing 6 foot tall wooden fence located along the northern property line. The applicant proposes to extend the existing fence, replacing the portion of the existing lattice and chain link fence along the western property line with a new 6 foot tall wooden fence. The applicant is also proposing to replace the section of lattice fencing on the southern side of the property with a new black aluminum fence that will also extend around the pool. The same black aluminum fence is proposed to replace the lattice fence and gate that extends across the driveway. Privacy fencing may be appropriate in the rear yard where visual impact is minimized. As stated above, tall screen fencing is usually for side and rear yards where it is not visible from a public way. The proposed location of the 6 foot fence would be located in the rear yard and would not be visible from either Gittings Street or Bosely Avenue. The street view from Gittings Street of the rear and side yard where the proposed location of the new fence will be is visually concealed due to mature landscaping. The proposed 6 foot tall wood privacy fence would have little to no impact visually on the Historic District. As noted above, chain link fencing is prohibited, therefore the wooden fence replacement would be more appropriate. The fence will meet height requirements and would allow for a more functional back yard for the property owner. In addition, the applicant is also proposing to replace the lattice fence and driveway gate that is visible from Bosley Avenue with a new 4.5 foot tall aluminum fence and aluminum drive through gate that would connect to the primary home. The 4.5 foot tall aluminum fence and driveway gate is consistent with past approvals and is proposed to consist of the color black. Overall, the proposed 6 foot wood fence in the rear yard and the 4.5 foot aluminum fence and driveway gate would be more appropriate than the existing fence and meets the requirements for the District. The request to replace only the side porch composite shingle roof with a new composite shingle roof, to match the existing, meets the requirements for in kind replacement. The request is considered a minor action that can be approved administratively but will be a part of this application. Summary and Recommendations Based on the previous findings-of-fact, staff recommends approval of the following actions requested by Certificates of Appropriateness, HLC2019-00035, with the conditions noted below: HLC2019-00035 October 10, 2019 Page 5 1. Install a wood paneled fence, 6’ tall in height, to replace the existing lattice and chain link fencing across a portion of the western property line, connecting to the existing 6’ wood fence on the northern property line. 2. Install a 4.5 foot tall black aluminum fence across a portion of the southern property line to extend around the pool, connecting to the proposed 6’ tall wooden fence along the western property line. 3. Replace the lattice fencing and driveway gate extending across the driveway with a new 4.5 foot tall black aluminum fence and driveway gate. 4. Replace only the side porch composite shingle roof with a new composite shingle roof to match the existing. 5. Any additional improvements shall require a separate Certificate of Appropriateness. 6. All required building and zoning permits shall be obtained from the City of Suffolk. Attachments  Suffolk EL EY S T DR RIVER Historic R VI EW Conservation ST NANSEMOND AD ST MAI JO N ES MEADE E RIV E Overlay District & N BRO N ST LAKE FO RT ST PI TC W DR R AV E AL LE N VE N CE RD National Register ST TA IE Historic Districts NS BU T LE IL L E A HK CO V V ER E KI ET E AV RI NG Legend DU MV ND T LE R D W KA SB LA TH OR HI GH ! ( HLC2019-00035 Address Point selection W ESTERN ER O AVE ST Type of Overlay CHU IN ST E S Historic Overlay District FO R E L CR E RCH ST T DISTRICT HI L S ER NN CEDAR HILL DISTRICT (2006) ST PI E EAST WASHINGTON STREET DISTRICT (2002) W CONSTA ST NCE RD AN M AH Historic Overlay NORTH MAIN STREET DISTRICT EXTENSION (1998) PRE N T IS S T VE ORIGINAL SUFFOLK DISTRICT (1987) TH I R D A VE RE A SUFFOLK DISTRICT EXPANSION (2004) E RD MOO T WEST END DISTRICT (2004) BU T E S E D ER A V R WEST END DISTRICT EXPANSION (2004) KETTL E HC2019-00035 E ST R ST C E AD ST N V A BR EW ST PI N PE N DE A PI T CH N MARKET S Y T O N BRO T E C Y S ST ST N F I T NER N CLA Disclaimer. TH E CITY OF SUFFOLK MAKES NO WARR ANTY, REPR ESEN TATION, A IN Y S OR GU ARANTEE OF ANY KIN D REGARD ING EITHER ANY MAPS OR OTH ER INFORMATION PROVID ED HEREIN OR THE SOUR CES OF SUCH MAPS OR OTHER INFORMATION. THE CITY OF SU FFOLK SPEC IFICAL LY DISC LAIMS ALL REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES, PI N DA N M EXPRESS OR IMPL IED, INCLU DING, WITHOUT LIMITATION , THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERC HANTABIL ITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTIC ULAR PUR POSE. W W AS RD GITTI ! ( HI NGTON L LA The City of Suffolk assumes no liability either for an y errors, omissions, M ILI TA R Y RD NGS S ST or ina ccu racies in the information provid ed regard le ss of the cause of such T or for any de cision made, action taken , or action not taken by the user in VE HO reliance upon an y maps o r information provid ed h erein. R A VE BA N K A K S EN A Parcel a nd Zon in g information h as been developed to pro vide a g raphic JA CK S T representation of the Real Esta te Property Tax Maps. The bound aries of an y ON S P parce l may have be en a djusted to provide a more visually pleasin g presen tation. AD ST T User should refer to instrument o f transfer (dee d or plat) fo r leg al bou ndary J AM ES locatio n a nd p erime ter or area measurements. LI ND D Aerial Ph otog raphy captured March 199 9. A limite d area of th e C ity was reflow n in March of 2001. The most up-to-date pho tography available w as use d to capture R S BR O E pla nimetric informatio n. A EY AV SM IT H SA IN T ST N AVE I T MARY L ¹ LA N D LL HA RO H S CAU S AV E ST E W AS EC A WI LS O ST HI N ST NG K Y S C BE T TO OA VIRG EN N S I N IA T T A VE LO D O NS S NT CUL COU D AD T WE LL R AM T S Y S S S T A A OR G L IN O T A CT JE F R T FER M ASON A V E RO 1:12,500 A K S FA MA SO S ST N S D IS S T CA YO R ON 1 inch = 1,042 feet S M AR GRA AVE NBY A IN AS HL E Y AV E ST CED ST City of Suffolk Department of BA T T ER Y AV E Planning & Community Development Updated : 9/9/2019 User Name: bsmith Date: 9/9/2019  ZONING / LAND USE MAP HLC2019-00035 FIRST AVE PITCHK ETTLE R BUTE ST N BROA D D ST W WASH INGTON ST 34G16(6)C*7*8*9*2A+ GITTIN G S ST AVE MILITARY AVE CAUSE Y BOSLE RD Y S BROA s SMITH ST D ST AVE LINDEN MARY LAND AVE User Name: bsmith Date: 9/9/2019  109 Bosley Avenue New 6 foot tall wooden fence to replace existing fencing. New black aluminum fence and gate to extend across driveway. New black aluminum fence to replace a portion of lattice fencing and to enclose the pool. 03/04/2019  HLC2019-00035 109 Bosley Avenue Street view of the rear and side yard from Gittings Street. Street view from Bosley Avenue. HLC2019-00035 109 Bosley Avenue The lattice and chain link fence along the western property line proposed to be replaced with a 6' tall wooden privacy fence. HLC2019-00035 109 Bosley Avenue The lattice and chain link fence along the western property line proposed to be replaced with a 6' tall wooden privacy fence.  HLC2019-00035 109 Bosley Avenue The lattice fence along the southern portion of the property is proposed to be replaced with a black aluminum fence. The aluminum fence is to extend around the pool to enclose it. HLC2019-00035 109 Bosley Avenue Existing lattice fence and driveway gate proposed to be replaced with a new black aluminum fence and aluminum driveway gate.  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, Current Planning Manager Date: October 10, 2019 Subject: REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS HLC2019- 00038, submitted by Ben Clay, applicant and property owner, for exterior material alterations on property located at 130 Brewer Avenue. The affected area is further identified as Zoning Map 34G17, Block 2 B, Parcels 18, 19, and 20, 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 within the 2004 West End Historic District of the Suffolk Historic Conservation Overlay District. The majority of the buildings in this neighborhood date from the last decade of the 19th century through the first four decades of the 20th century, and display the fashionable architectural styles of the period in which they were constructed. The dominant forms and styles, albeit vernacular, include Italianate, Queen Anne, Colonial Revival, Classical Revival, Tudor Revival, Bungalow/Craftsman, and American foursquare. Single-family dwellings dominated the area initially with a few multiple-family dwellings beginning to appear in the second quarter of the 20th century. The West End neighborhood is also home to several churches and some early- and late-20th-century commercial development The subject property consists of a single family home in the Colonial Revival style built circa 1910 – 1925. The house is 5 bays wide with a central entrance and projecting center bay. The front porch columns are scored and rest on concrete piers. The building is typical in design and form of other single-family dwellings that were constructed in Suffolk during the second quarter of the 20th century. Surrounding Characteristics The subject property is located in an area of contributing residential buildings. A list of adjacent HLC2019-00038 October 10, 2019 Page 2 and nearby properties is provided below. Contributing Building # Address Year Built Style /Non- Type Stories contributing Bungalow / 125 Brewer Ave. Residential ca. 1915 1.5 Contributing Craftsman Bungalow / 127 Brewer Ave. Residential ca. 1910 2.5 Contributing Craftsman Colonial 128 Brewer Ave. Residential ca.1915 2.5 Contributing Revival 129 Brewer Ave. Residential ca.1900 Queen Anne 2.5 Contributing Multi- Colonial Non- 131 Brewer Ave. Family ca.1950-1965 2 Revival contributing Residential Multi- Colonial Non- 133 – 133 ½ Brewer Ave. Family ca.1950-1965 2 Revival contributing Residential Bungalow / 134 Brewer Ave. Residential ca.1910 1.5 Contributing Craftsman 135 Brewer Ave. Residential ca. 1900 Queen Anne 2.5 Contributing Non- 136 Brewer Ave. Residential ca. 1950-1965 Other 2.0 contributing Colonial 137 Brewer Ave. Residential ca. 1935 2.0 Contributing Revival Colonial 138 Brewer Ave. Residential ca. 1930 2.5 Contributing Revival Case History In 2014, the property was subject to Certificate of Appropriateness HC-2014-00037, which authorized the construction of a garage (50’ x 20’) fronting on Pender Street with access provided by a concrete driveway. In 2012, Certificate of Appropriateness HC-2012-48 was approved which authorized the construction of a garage (50’ x 20’) fronting on Pender Street with accessed provided by a concrete driveway. The Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for the proposed garage was approved for a six (6) month time period. Construction did not commerce on the proposed garage and the COA subsequently expired, resulting in an identical proposal in 2014, which did result in the construction of the approved improvements. In 2005, Certificate of Appropriateness HC-2005-90AD was received resulting in the reinstallation of the existing wood siding in order to install insulation on the first floor, the replacement of windows with new in-kind wood windows, repair/replace wood railing and columns, and painting HLC2019-00038 October 10, 2019 Page 3 of the structure (walls, shutters, and dentils). 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 October 4, 2019. Proposed Action The applicant is requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace all existing exterior wood siding with Hardie-Plank siding of similar color. Condition Statement The applicant has provided a contractor’s statement, completed by Matt Stuffel of Total Home Improvements, Inc., which operates as a Class A Contractor. The statement notes that the overall condition of the existing siding is poor. It notes that moisture damage is present in areas on all elevations and that cupping and gapping observed would result in poor results if caulking is performed. Furthermore, the statement notes that overall, the existing wood siding is brittle with cracking noted throughout the structure. In total, the statement notes that 40 percent of the front façade, 73 percent of the south elevation, 76 percent of the rear elevation, and 75 percent of the north elevation require replacement. In addition to noting the condition of the wood siding, the statement mentions that the three additions that have been added to the structure are wrapped with siding that does not match the dimensions of the original siding observed on the main structure. Applicable Regulations and Analysis A. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) 1. Section 31-413(g)(7), Approval of Major Action by the HLC (v) Any alteration to exterior building materials or color of materials. B. Suffolk Historic District Design Guidelines 1. Chapter 1, Section F, Goals within the Historic Conservation Overlay District, 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 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. 2. Chapter 4, Section F.2.b. Guidelines for Wood Materials:  Repair rotten or missing sections rather than replace the entire element. Use HLC2019-00038 October 10, 2019 Page 4 epoxies to patch, piece, or consolidate parts. Match existing materials and details.  Replace wood elements only when they are rotten beyond repair. Match the original in material and design or use substitute materials that convey the same visual appearance.  Base the design of reconstructed elements on pictorial or physical evidence from the actual building rather than from similar buildings in the area.  In areas where wood is the predominant siding material, wood siding should be considered for use.  Wood is recommended for use on additions on elements such as windows, cornices, porch trim, and all other decorative features.  Materials other than historic materials which may replicate the qualities of the original may be acceptable as substitutes if the Historic Landmarks Commission determines that the substitute or synthetic material will produce the overall character, appearance, and performance.  Conditions Statement: A signed statement, with exhibits, from a licensed carpenter or general contractor stating the condition of the existing wood, ability to be repaired, need for replacement, proposed corrective measures, and options to replacement is required as supporting documentation for any application for a Certificate of Appropriateness. 3. Chapter 4, Section H.2. Guidelines for Synthetic Siding  General: Synthetic siding can be acceptable as a substitute for the original materials where the original siding materials have been removed, where the original siding materials have deteriorated beyond repair as determined by the Historic Landmarks Commission, or to additions to the primary historic building.  Economic Hardship: Economic hardship will not be a factor in the decision- making process; rather the decision will be based solely on the architectural considerations, including the historical and architectural significance of the building, the condition of the original siding, and the feasibility of replacement with in-kind materials.  Conditions Statement: A signed statement, with exhibits, from a licensed siding contractor or general contractor stating the condition of the existing siding, ability to be repaired, need for replacement, proposed corrective measures, and options to replacement is required as supporting documentation for any application for a Certificate of Appropriateness.  Cement-Fiber Siding: Cement-fiber siding is a relatively new product which is made of concrete and wood fibers. It can be cut and fit like wood siding and can be installed adjacent to existing historic wood trim. Although not much is known about its behavior over long periods of time, it appears to offer increased resistance to peeling paint problems, surface rigidity and a similar appearance to historic wood siding materials. This material is acceptable as a substitute for wood siding where the exposure and details of the original siding can be replicated and where the substitution involves an area no smaller than an entire face of the building. It is not appropriate for spot repairs where wood siding will HLC2019-00038 October 10, 2019 Page 5 be adjacent on the same face of the building. Substitute siding must align with the original siding and match the existing profile.  Vinyl Siding: Vinyl siding is not acceptable as a substitute siding material.  Aluminum Siding: Aluminum siding is not acceptable as a substitute siding material. C. 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, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, is strongly discouraged. Staff Analysis The structure in question is a large, architecturally significant home that serves as one of the more prominent resources along Brewer Avenue, which itself maintains a strong cohesive historic impression. The size of the structure, approximately 6,000 square feet, makes it stand out along Brewer Avenue, which has an extensive collection of well-maintained contributing resources. Inspection of the property has confirmed that much of the existing wood siding, as noted in the contractor’s statement, is in poor condition. While visible evidence of moisture damage of some of the siding was confirmed, a significant portion of siding appears to be in a condition where repair is feasible. In accordance with Chapter 4, Section 4.2.b of the Historic District Design Guidelines in regard to wood materials, one should “repair rotten or missing sections rather than replace the entire element” and “replace wood elements only when they are rotten beyond repair.” The applicant requests replacing all the existing exterior siding with James Hardie-Plank siding, which is a fiber cement siding that is described in Chapter 4, Section H.2 of the Historic District Design Guidelines. Specifically, the Guidelines note that synthetic siding such has fiber cement “can be acceptable as a substitute for the original materials where the original siding materials have been removed, where the original siding materials have deteriorated beyond repair as determined by the Historic Landmarks Commission, or to additions to the primary historic building.” Fiber cement lapboard can be designed to replicate wood materials; however, as noted above, it is always recommended to preserve and restore existing wood materials as a first option for the preservation and treatment of historic resources. With portions of siding on the structure being repairable, specifically 60 percent of the front façade, 27 percent of the south elevation, 24 percent of the rear elevation, and 25 percent of the north elevation as noted in the provided contractor’s statement, the Guidelines support restoring the existing siding, while replacing any missing siding or siding that is damage beyond repair with wood that matches the existing in material and design. Due to the size and visibility of this structure, repair or replacement in kind is appropriate. HLC2019-00038 October 10, 2019 Page 6 As mentioned above, the structure is large, which means the replacement of all the existing wood siding would have a greater visual impact in the neighborhood. Wood siding, particularly aged, good quality wood represented by the existing siding at the home, evolves over time and requires maintenance that adds to its historic character. When required maintenance takes place, the appearance of the material shifts to reflect the work, whether it involve sanding, painting, or other methods of treatment. Wood work provides a level of craftsmanship that is not present and cannot fully be replicated with synthetic materials. With the size of the structure in question, the installation of a synthetic siding will not fully be capable of replicating the design and natural imperfections observed in a quality wood product and will produce a noticeable impact to the street and the District in addition to the resource itself. Summary and Recommendations Based on the above findings-of-fact and the conditions outlined below, staff recommends denial of the requested action. Staff recommends approval of the following actions in regard to HLC2019-00038: 1. The repair of the existing siding that can be repaired. 2. Replacement of existing siding that cannot be repaired with wood siding that matches the existing in material, size, and exposure. 3. All siding be painted a color matching the existing siding. 4. No additional exterior improvements shall be permitted without the issuance of a separate Certificate of Appropriateness. 5. All required permits shall be obtained from the City of Suffolk prior to commencement of work. HLC2019-00038  ZONING / LAND USE MAP HLC2019-00038 W CONSTA N CE RD D ST N B R OA PRENTIS ST THIR D A V E 34G17(2)B*18*19*20 SECON D AVE AVE BREWE ST R PENDER FIRST AVE s MARKET ST PL HENLEY User Name: bsmith Date: 9/18/2019 HLC2019-00038 130 Brewer Avenue Subject Property Subject Property HLC2019-00038 130 Brewer Avenue HLC2019-00038 130 Brewer Avenue HLC2019-00038 130 Brewer Avenue HLC2019-00038 130 Brewer Avenue HLC2019-00038 130 Brewer Avenue Zoning Case Activity Report October 2019 PROPERTY OWNER(S) LOCATION VIOLATION(S) JUDGEMENT INSPECTOR Court Jeffrey Townsend 178 E. Washington St Covered patio without COA pending, Matt Nov. 7, 2019 Doing work without an NOV sent Andres Evelio 131 Clay St Matt approved COA 7/18/2019 Jean Claude & NOV 237 Pinner St Fence without COA Matt Marie Noel pending  HISTORIC CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT GENERAL CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS Application Numb er: HLC20 1 9-0004 I THIS CERTIFICATE MUST BE POSTED IN A VISIBLE LOCATION ON THE PREMISES This is to certify that the exterior improvements at the following location has met the requirements of Section 3 1-413(fX 1) of the Unified Development Ordinance: Property Address: 500 W. Washington Street Property Owner: Christina Frazier Property Owner's Address: 500 W. Washington Street Property Zoning M ap I dentifi c ati on : 3 4G 17 (A)*- 7 Property Zoning: CBD, Commercial Business District, and HC, Historic Conservation Overlay District The following actions/conditions are approved: l. Repaint the existing front and rear porch floor with Tucker House Gray (CW720), or equivalent from the approved Williamsburg Color Collection. 2. Repaint the existing front porch ceiling with Wythe House Gray (CW72l), or equivalent form the approved Williamsburg Color Collection. 3. Install one full view storm door on the front elevation of the existing dwelling. 4. Install one full view storm door on the rear elevation of the existing dwelling. 5. Install one full view storm door on the western elevation of the existing dwelling. 6. Any additional improvements shall require a Certificate of Appropriateness. THIS CERTIFICATE IS VALID FOR SD( (6) MONTHS FROM THE DATE LISTED ABOVE. THE APPROVED ACTION(S) MUST COMMENCE WMHIN THE PRESCRIRED PERIOD UNLESS A REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION IS APPROVED. REQUESTS FOR EXTENSIONS MUST BE RITING To THE)ADYINISTRATOR PRIOR To COMMENCEMENT oF woRK.