Historic Landmarks Commission Packets

City of Suffolk HISTORIC LANDMARKS COMMISSION January 9, 2020 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, January 8, 2020 (757) 514-4060 PREPARED BY THE CITY OF SUFFOLK DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF PLANNING  AGENDA Historic Landmarks Commission Meeting Thursday, January 9, 2020 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 HLC2018-00026, submitted by Jean Claude Noel, applicant and property owner, for after-the-fact installation of fencing at property located at 237 Pinner Street. The property is further identified as Zoning Map 34G18(A)*153, 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 and installation of replacement windows 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 RM, Residential Medium zoning 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 November 14, 2019 9:00 A.M. The regular meeting of the Historic Landmarks Commission was held on Thursday, November 14, 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 William Hutchings, Deputy 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 HLC2019-00040, submitted by Jeffrey Townsend, property owner, for an after-the-fact attached rear patio addition 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 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 and features a contributing one-story commercial building that was constructed between 1926 and 1940. A COA was issued for the property in September 2017 for construction of a new flat roof, a new aluminum storefront, and installation of two vinyl clad windows and an aluminum door on the rear elevation. In October of 2017, an after-the-fact request was approved for the removal of nonconforming vinyl siding and an original transom window, which was to be replaced with a powder coated aluminum transom window with wood trim. A notice of violation was issued in March 2018 for window signage and a wall sign that had been installed without a COA. The applicant received an after-the-fact approval for the wall sign and an application was submitted for the window signs. Additionally, on May 17, 2018 a separate notice of violation was issued for the installation of a covered patio without a COA. The applicant requested an after-the-fact approval for the covered patio; however, the HLC denied the request at the November 8, 2018, meeting and recommended the applicant work with staff for an appropriate design. The applicant is now seeking after-the-fact approval for the 438 square foot covered patio at the rear of the building by proposing to paint the wood elements and existing metal gutters in the color black and to install brick around the bases of the wooden posts. Ms. Braziel noted that the Guidelines support the use of brick for additions where brick is the common wall material. The subject building has a stretcher bond brick structural system, thus bricking the base of the wooden posts would be an appropriate treatment of the patio supports and tie the structure to the original building. The Guidelines also state that materials used on additions should be compatible with the traditional materials of historic buildings. Mercantile buildings in the district are primarily brick structures with wood trim and metal accents. As stated previously, the applicant is proposing to paint the wood surfaces and metal gutters black so that the appearance of the patio will be similar to metal and more visually appropriate. As such, staff recommends approval of this request with the conditions noted in the staff report. Ms. Braziel added that the applicant also requested to paint a plywood door that was installed without a COA and is attached to both the neighboring building and a temporary chain link fence that surrounds the site of the former assessor’s building. The plywood is being used as a door but is not appropriate as constructed. As such, staff recommends denial of this request. The public hearing was opened and Mr. Jeffrey Townsend, property owner, spoke in favor of the application. There being no other speakers, the public hearing was closed. The Commission briefly discussed the site, followed by a motion from Commissioner Bailey 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: Ms. Jones provided an update on HLC2019-38. She stated that the applicant is taking extra time to provide additional documentation and is expected to submit information for the next HLC meeting on December 12, 2019. STAFF REPORTS: Enforcement Update: Donald Bennett, Property Maintenance Official, reported on the following properties:  342 N. Main Street – Court case scheduled to be heard on 12-5-19  129 Wellons Street – Court case continued until 12-5-19 2   179 E. Washington Street – Court case continued until 12-5-19  131 Clay Street – Still working with new property owner to bring in engineering report and submit COA  127 Brewer Avenue – Court case scheduled to be heard on 12-5-19  127 Clay Street – Court case continued until 12-5-19 Zoning Update: Matthew Levy, Zoning Inspector II, reported on the following properties:  178 E. Washington Street – Continued until December to see outcome of HLC meeting  131 Clay Street – Still working with staff to get COA approved  237 Pinner Street – NOV sent Administrative Approvals: Ms. Jones provided a brief report on the two administrative COAs approved since the last HLC meeting in September. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. 3  HISTORIC LANDMARKS COMMISSION Motion: To approve with Motion: staff’s recommendations as presented 1st: 1st: Bailey 2nd: November 14, 2019 2nd: Turner HLC2019-00040 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 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: January 9, 2020 Subject: REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS HLC2019- 00038, submitted by Ben Clay, applicant and property owner, for exterior material alterations and window replacement 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. Brewer Avenue itself maintains a strong cohesive historical impression that remains largely intact from its period of significance and is lined with contributing residential structures. In particular, Brewer Avenue is home to several impressive Colonial Revival and Craftsman Style Bungalow homes. The subject property consists of a contributing 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 entrance contains a one lite denticulated transom, one lite paneled sidelights, and fluted pilasters. The wide molded wood cornice features dentils and modillions. The center bay on the second story is arched and contains a tripartite window. The window lintels and sills consist of wood and the front porch columns are scored and rest on concrete piers. HLC2019-00038 January 9, 2020 Page 2 Surrounding Characteristics The subject property is located in an area of contributing residential buildings. A list of adjacent 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 On October 17, 2019, the Historic Landmarks Commission considered a request to replace all of the exterior wood siding on this property. At that time, it was revealed that the applicant was proposing changes that were not made a part of the application. Additionally, the Commission discussed the need for additional information in regard to the request, specifically a mock-up of the proposed siding to compare to the existing siding. As such, the HLC tabled this request by a vote to 9-0. 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. HLC2019-00038 January 9, 2020 Page 3 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 access 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 commence 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 of the structure (walls, shutters, and dentils). Of note, the installation of new in-kind wood windows did not come to fruition. 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 January 3, 2020. Proposed Action The applicant is requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace all existing exterior wood siding with Hardie-Plank siding of similar color, the replacement of existing wood molding, dental block, and window trim with Hardie material, and the replacement of 48 original wood windows with vinyl replacement windows. 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 regard to the dental block, molding, and window trim, the contractor’s statement notes that 90 percent of these elements on the front elevation, 70 percent of the rear elevation, 75 percent of the north elevation and 78 percent of the south elevation require replacement due to observed rotting or the fact they are missing. Additionally, the statement notes that in order to properly install a water vapor barrier between the wood frame and the replacement siding, replacement of these elements is recommended. No pictures were provided that support the condition statement in regard to the trim elements. HLC2019-00038 January 9, 2020 Page 4 The contractor’s statement also provides an analysis of the 48 existing wood windows proposed for replacement. The statement recommends that all of these windows be replaced, primarily due to wood rot. Windows proposed for replacement include two of the curved, second story windows on the front façade, and all 12 of the sunroom windows on the rear elevation. While pictures of the curved windows proposed for replacement were provided, the photos are not detailed enough to justify their replacement. Windows 1-6, as labeled on the contractor’s statement are not slated for replacement, thus photographs have not been provided for these windows. 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 C.3, Guidelines for Window Preservation:  Preserve Original Windows: Insure that all hardware is in good operating condition, that caulk and glazing putty are intact and in good condition, and that water drains off the sills.  Maintain Original Windows: Maintain original windows by patching, splicing, consolidating or otherwise reinforcing the wooden members. Wood that appears to be in bad condition because of peeling paint or separated joints often can be repaired. Uncover and repair covered-up windows and reinstall windows where they have been blocked in. If the window is no longer needed, the glass should be retained and the back side frosted, screened, covered with dark painted plywood on the inside, or shuttered so that it appears from the outside to be in use.  If repair of an original window is necessary, repair only the deteriorated element to match the original in size, composition, material, dimension, and detail by patching, splicing, consolidating, or otherwise reinforcing the deteriorated section. The removal of historic materials shall be avoided.  Avoid Replacing Original Windows: Replace windows only when they are missing or beyond repair. Reconstruction should be based on physical evidence or old photographs, when available. Replacement windows should be HLC2019-00038 January 9, 2020 Page 5 designated to match the original in appearance, detail, material, profile, and overall size as closely as possible. Do not use inappropriate materials or finishes that radically change the sash, depth of reveal, muntin configuration, the reflective quality or color of the glazing, or the appearance of the frame.  Maintain the Original Window Patterns: Do not change the number, location, size, or glazing pattern of windows by cutting new openings, blocking in windows, or installing replacement sash that do not fit the window opening.  New Window Materials: New windows may be constructed of painted wood, metal clad or vinyl clad. Unfinished or anodized aluminum is not permitted. When evaluating the acceptability of replacement windows, the following criteria shall be used: o Kind and texture of materials; o Architectural and historical compatibility; o Comparison to original window profile; o Level of significance of original windows to the architectural style of the building; and o Material performance and durability. 3. Chapter 4, Section F.2.b. Guidelines for Wood Materials:  Repair rotten or missing sections rather than replace the entire element. Use 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. 4. 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 HLC2019-00038 January 9, 2020 Page 6 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 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. 3. 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 most 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 HLC2019-00038 January 9, 2020 Page 7 of the siding was confirmed, a significant portion of the 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.” During a site visit to the structure, a visual inspection of the molding, wood trim, cornice, dentils, and modillions took place. Aside from a few areas where these features were missing, or moisture damage was noted, the vast majority of these features appear to be in a condition where repair is feasible. The condition of these elements is noted throughout the photographs attached to this staff report. The applicant requests replacing all these existing wood features with James Hardie-Plank, which is a fiber cement material that is described in Chapter 4, Section H.2 of the Historic District Design Guidelines. Specifically, the Guidelines note that synthetic material 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 many portions of the siding on the structure being repairable, the Guidelines support restoring it, while replacing any missing siding that is damaged beyond repair with wood that matches the existing siding in material and design. Due to the size and visibility of this structure, repair or replacement in kind is appropriate. In regard to the cornice, dental boards, molding, modillions, and window trim, visual inspection has revealed these elements to largely be in a state of good repair, as noted above. Restoration of these features is supported by the Guidelines. Only in instances where these features are missing should they be replaced, and in such instances in-kind replacement with wood material is supported. James Hardie does not appear to offer a product that would successfully replicate these wood elements visually or from the standpoint of craftsmanship. In addition to the proposed changes noted above, the applicant is requesting to replace 48 of the 62 existing wood windows on the home with vinyl replacement windows that match the existing windows in configuration. Aside from the sunroom windows on the rear elevation, these windows consist of a 1/1 configuration. The majority of the sunroom windows consist of a 3/2 configuration. Windows not proposed for replacement include all the first story windows on the front elevation, to include the front door side-lites and all the windows on what is identified in the supplemental materials as a shed addition. Additionally, several windows on the sunroom addition have been boarded up and are not proposed to be replaced as a part of this application. The Historic District Design Guidelines identify windows as a major character and style- determining feature of a historic building and therefore discourages their replacement. The Guidelines offers clear directions on the preservation of windows and the criteria for evaluating the installation of replacement windows. The Historic District Design Guidelines further state the removal of historic resources shall be avoided, therefore the rehabilitation or repair of the HLC2019-00038 January 9, 2020 Page 8 deteriorated window section(s) should be the primary objective. The contractor’s statement notes that the windows proposed for replacement exhibit wood rot and/or no longer effectively function. Pictures were provided of all of the existing windows proposed for replacement revealing many windows with peeling paint and some with sill damage. These pictures do not appear to demonstrate that all of these windows require replacement and repair options are not addressed. As previously stated, the applicant proposes to replace all windows with vinyl replacement windows that match the configurations but not the details of the existing windows slated for replacement. It is important to note that the curved glass windows on the front façade of the second story will require specific curved glass replacements, and no rendering has been provided by the applicant that details a window that would be an acceptable in-kind replacement of these important and unique windows. Additionally, all of the 1/1 windows feature lugs in the upper sashes that would need to be replicated with any appropriate replacement window. The replacement window proposed by the applicant does not show this feature being included. In accordance with Chapter 4, C.3 of the Historic District Design Guidelines, new windows may consist of painted wood, metal clad, or vinyl clad. Vinyl replacement windows do not replicate the profile of wood windows, nor do they offer the material quality and craftsmanship that other products can. As such, vinyl replacement windows are not appropriate for contributing historic structures in the district. If the replacement of wood windows is required on the structure, it is recommended that wood windows be used on the highly visible front façade, and a vinyl clad or metal clad replacement window be utilized on all other facades in accordance with the Historic District Design Guidelines. Please note that the replacement of windows requested for this property in 2005 required wood to be used. As mentioned above, the structure is large, which means the replacement of all the existing wood siding, dental boards, molding, window trim, and the 48 wood windows would have a greater visual impact in the neighborhood. Wood elements, particularly aged, good quality wood, evolves over time and requires maintenance that adds to its historic character. Wood work provides a level of craftsmanship that is not present and cannot fully be replicated with synthetic materials. Furthermore, replacement of these existing wood features with a synthetic material on the entirety of the structure would threaten the contributing status of this valuable historic resource. The Guidelines do not support replacement of original features in good condition or in repairable condition, as is the case with many of the features in question. In addition, conditions that would require replacement of most of the windows and all of the trim have not been demonstrated by the applicant. With the size of the structure in question, the installation of a synthetic siding, dental boards, molding and window trim, and the replacement of 48 wood windows with vinyl replacement windows, 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 actions. HLC2019-00038 January 9, 2020 Page 9 Staff recommends the following actions in regard to HLC2019-00038: 1. The restoration of the existing siding that can be repaired. 2. The restoration of the existing dental boards, molding, cornice, modillions, pilasters, and window trim that can be repaired. Missing features shall be documented and replaced in- kind. 3. Replacement of existing siding that cannot be repaired with wood siding that matches the existing in material, size, detail, and exposure. 4. All wood features shall be painted a color matching the existing feature. 5. The repair of the existing windows that can be repaired. 6. Replacement of front elevation windows that cannot be repaired with wood windows that match the existing in material, size, configuration, detail, and exposure. 7. Replacement of the windows on the north, south, and rear elevations that cannot be repaired with vinyl clad windows that match the existing in size, configuration, detail, and exposure. 8. No additional exterior improvements shall be permitted without the issuance of a separate Certificate of Appropriateness. 9. 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 Nomination Photos HLC2019-00038 Nomination Photos 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 Updated Contractor's Statement Including Windows and Trim 7 8 13 14 10 11 9  12 16 18 17 25 24 27 26 29 28 32 33 35 34 40 39  41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53  54 53 55 56  57 58 60 59  61 62 Proposed Replacement Style Zoning Case Activity Report January 2020 PROPERTY OWNER(S) LOCATION VIOLATION(S) JUDGEMENT INSPECTOR NOV sent Andres Evelio 131 Clay St Doing work without an approved COA Matt 7/18/2019 Jean Claude & Marie 237 Pinner St Fence without COA NOV Pending Matt Noel Justin Thomas Bush, NOV sent 205 Grace St Install trim and fence, no COA Christine Reg. Agent 11/7/2019  HISTORIC CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT GENERAL CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS Application Number: HLC 2019 -00045 THIS CERTIFICATE MUST BE POSTED IN A VISIBLE LOCATION ON THE PREMISES This is to certify that the signs located at the following location have met the requirements of Section 31-413(0(1) of the Unified Development Ordinance: Property Address: 253 W. Washington Street Property Owner: Ellis Rentals, LLC Property Owner's Address: 400 Reids Ferry Road, Suffolk, yA23434 Property Zoning Map Identification : 34G 17 (A)* I 63 Property Zoning: CBD, Central Business District, and HC, Historic Conservation Overlay District The following actions/conditions are approved: l. Install one window sign, 700 square inches in area, on the two panel window on the right side of the primary faEade as submitted, which is less than l}Vo of the size of the glass window. 2. Install one window sign, 700 square inches in area, on the two panel window on the left side of the primary fagade as submitted, which is less than l}Vo of the size of the glass window. 3. The decorative design proposed on the primary faEade doors is acceptable as submitted. 4. Any additional improvements shall require a separate Certificate of Appropriateness. THIS CERTIFICATE IS VALID FOR SIX (6) MONTHS. THE APPROVED ACTION(S) MUST COMMENCE WITHIN SIX (6) MONTHS, OTHERWISE A REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION MUST BE GRANTED BY THE HISTORIC COMMISSION OR THE ADMINISTRATOR BEFORE SUCH ACTION CAN Ou ning Admini Dare: t/f zt f tq