HDRB: New Inn coming to 1 Pine Street

Cape Charles Mirror Report – Wayne Creed

Developer Bill Parr made an appearance before the Cape Charles Historic District Review Board, filing an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for his 1 Pine Street building. This is a commercial building and the Town considers this a contributing structure. Part of the exposed brick façade had been previously painted, and the original plan (applicant met before the Board in November 2013) was to remove the paint, leaving the original exposed brickwork. However, attempts to remove the paint proved futile, and ran the risk of damaging the brick. Mr. Parr came before the board to propose painting over the original paint, and to get an idea of what paint palette would be acceptable to the HDRB.

1 Pine Street

Depending on how much artistic license is allowed, the applicant is possibly looking into using some form of ‘faux’ technique. The applicant also brought an antique lamp that he wished to use to light the sidewalk in front. The fixed window on the side is very large, 107” x 96”; the applicant wishes to divide the glass rather than attempting to use the original, odd size. The project also calls for fabric awnings, one for each unit.

The project plans to create two hotel rooms, forming what the applicant called an ‘Inn’. Each unit will be roughly 500 sq. feet, with a studio in front, and a king size suite in the rear, similar in style to Patrick Hand’s Hotel Blue, utilizing as much exposed brick as possible. Given the location (a few steps from Kelly’s and easy walking distance to all of downtown and the harbor), and the shortage of rooms downtown during the tourist season, Mr. Parr hopes to have the units ready for occupancy by Spring.

The Historic Guidelines address “paint and painting of masonry” under “Decorative Feature” 1, which states that unpainted masonry should not be painted. Is recommended that it is also preferred to re-paint rather than damage the brick trying to remove it. Chemical methods should not be used. Decorative Feature 4 also cautions against “using a single color to paint an entire building” (page 56).

The Board approved the application.

…

418 Washington
An application has been received for a Certificate of Appropriateness from the owner of the property at 418 Washington Avenue. Although not deemed a contributing structure, it does have an interesting story. The house may date back to the 1920s, was part of another structure, and was actually moved from a farm into town. The other structure was moved to Bellehaven. The proposed work on the building includes construction of a one-hundred square foot enclosed room to provide a new principal entrance to the building. The building is oriented with the principal entrance facing west, instead of north (Washington Avenue). From staff report:

• The Guidelines specifically address enclosures on various sides of a building. According to the Porch Types section of the Guidelines, “Secondary porches on the side or rear of the building can be one or two stories. Sometimes they are closed in to form new spaces like pantries or sunroom.” (page 42). Although the proposed enclosed addition is connected to the principal entrance door, relative to street frontage the proposed addition is located on a secondary side of the building and may be enclosed per the Guidelines.
The Board approved the application.

633 Jefferson – Kitchen remodel
The house at 633 Jefferson Avenue is a contributing structure on a conforming size lot. The applicant wishes to remove a chimney in order to make more space in an already cramped kitchen, as well as making modifications to the current windows. The window changes have to do with the “unusual length of a kitchen window” which limits the current counter and cabinet space.

The applicant stated that the chimney in the kitchen is non-functioning, and is basically just ‘an eyesore’. It also tends, during heavy rains, to allow water to enter the home. From staff report:
• The Guidelines specifically address the preference to maintain original windows (page 37) and avoid changing the number and location of windows (page 40). One window is described as not being appropriately sized since it extends below the kitchen counter tops. Applicant proposes resizing this window opening. The other window is proposed for removal because the applicant seeks more counter and cabinet space that is currently not available due to the existing window opening.
• The applicant describes this chimney as non-functional and an eye-sore. The chimney also is described as allowing for rain water intrusion. The Guidelines are rather quiet on the status of chimneys except to state that historic building roof types, including elements such as chimneys and light wells, should be retained (Building Element 1, page 34).
The Board approved the application.