1

Inspection Report

Gilliland Hotel building

308 Virginia Avenue

Clarksville, Virginia

Prepared For:

Todd Nelson

8190 Strawberry Lane, #517

Falls Church, VA 22042

(703)850-2938

Toddnelsonemail@gmail.com

Prepared By:

Richard Morris

Richard Morris Architecture, LLC.

10 Ninth Street

Lynchburg, VA 24594

434-209-0618

2

August 28, 2018

Mr. Nelson:

Thank you for the opportunity to assist you with your possible purchase of the old Gilliland

Hotel building in Clarksville. Along with your builder, we examined for any structural defects

or possible issues that could be seen throughout both the interior and exterior of the structure.

The report below will detail any of those defects that could be observed.

Narrative:

According to the Virginia Dept. of Historic Resources the building was built in 1898. It is 3

stories high and 6 bays wide and has a decorative metal cornice. The 1898 date of construction is

at the center of the frieze. Below the metal frieze is a brick soldier course, and decorative brick

panels are above the 3rd story windows. The bonding of the building’s brick is common with

most of it a sixth course header pattern, but can be seen as a seventh course header in certain

sections of the facade. The upper story windows have pressed-metal hoods. An entrance to

upper levels is in the center bay of 1st story. At one time the hotel had an open 2-story porch

across street façade; this may explain the 2nd story “door-to-nowhere” and the ghost marks on

the front. The Mesker Brothers of St. Louis and Evansville apparently were the original

manufacturer of the metal components on the building.

Historical photo showing the porches on the front of the hotel from turn of the century.

Since the building is no longer a hotel, the interior uses were changed by a previous owner

creating two storefronts and apartments on the upper two floors. Some of the historic features

remain intact. The photos below show photographs of “in process” restoration from the previous

owner. Interior doorways seem to have been kept in place as well as some original walls, trim,

3

mantles, etc. Most important, it shows the original sized windows and the configuration prior to

the retrofit. Interesting to note is that there was no front door on the second floor to what once

was a porch. Access to the porches may have been by way of an exterior stair.

1 Original stair, door with transom, wood floor

2 Original door, moldings, wall framing

3 Rear facade prior to deck being rebuilt and raising rear yard

4

4 Pre-restoration with six over six windows

5 new windows and door

The rear yard has been raised using retaining walls and fill to bring the grade up higher on rear

foundation. The original configuration of the first floor is unknown, but what is present seems to

have been there for several decades. “Ghost” marks can be seen along the second floor where

the original porch was attached to the building (see photos below).

6a & b Note ghost mark of column and holes (top), area between windows

5

Interior elements such as the original stairway with newel, railings and turned pickets are intact

along with what appears to be original bead board wainscot in the center corridor. Raised four

panel doors that remain have transoms above them (some with original hardware). Some

original mantels remain with cast iron surrounds.

Exterior:

Brick veneer-

Buildings such as this were built using hand made bricks that were not fired at the same

temperatures as modern brick. Natural hydraulic lime-based mortars were used because they

were softer, flexible, and moisture-friendly than the masonry around it; in turn releasing any

water from the walls, thus protecting the bricks over time. Modern mortars are harder and will

not let moisture wick out of the masonry, trapping any water within the joints, which over time

leeches into the clay bricks and with freeze/thaw, the faces of the brick will start to crack and

break away or “spall”. Samples of the original mortar should be removed and analyzed for

original type used.

At the rear left (view from the rear) corner, stone could be observed at the base of the foundation

and more than likely what the building was built upon (photo below).

Issues:

Several areas were noted as to improper mortar repairs using either a type “S” or Portland

cement. Broken bricks were observed as well as missing mortar joints. The parapet wall and

6

chimneys have been rebuilt using improper mortar. The left side elevation had a building that

used to tie into the exterior wall of the building and the voids have been filled using cement.

These issues were observed on all sides of the structure and in numerous places. The photos

below show just a few areas on various sides of the building. Also, of note, there appears to be a

limewash on the right side of the building over the bricks. That is fine if indeed it is a lime wash

and not a conventional paint.

7 Broken brick faces

8 Rear wall at deck, mortar missing

9 Left side- chimney repointed with Portland cement

7

10 Left side- connection points filled in with Portland

11 Broken bricks at window frame, center front

12 Close up of area pointed with incorrect mortar and broken brick caused by spalling

Another note to the condition of the brick are the various areas of penetrations through the brick with

vents, pipes, a/c units. These areas should be properly filled and inspected to insure air tightness and

that no pest intrusion can occur.

8

13 Rear facade- dryer vent

14 Rear facade- areas of penetrations, improper and missing mortar

Recommendation:

These areas of improper mortar repair should be removed following the National Park Service’s

Brief on “Repointing Mortar Joints in Historic Masonry Buildings” by a qualified mason who

understands and has previous experience in lime base mortars (https://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-

preserve/briefs/2-repoint-mortar-joints.htm). Further damage could be inflicted on a structure if

the mason does not know how to properly remove the incorrect mortar joints and repair already

damaged brick.

Crawlspace-

This space was not accessible for normal inspection and would highly recommend a thorough

inspection by a certified termite company. Mr. Callahan recommended Rozer Termite (434-447-

9

8953) to perform this task. They will be able to give you not only a termite and pest report, but

also any damage that is observed throughout this space.

Roof-

Slopped TPO covers the main third floor roof and a standing seam metal roof cover the rear

second floor roof which extends over the porch roof. Age of the roofing materials are unknown,

but assume these were applied when the building was restored by the previous owner. This type

of roof has a life expectancy of 25-30 years.

15 Main roof at left parapet wall; improper parging

16 Lower standing seam metal

Issues:

Overall the roofs look in good condition with only a few minor issues. Rust is starting to show

through along sections of the standing seam metal roof. Areas along the rear of the third-floor

exterior wall and where the second-floor roof converge, signs of rust can also be observed.

Along the parapet walls where the roof flashing turns up, the protective coating is starting to

crack and peel up. There is a lot of a tar sealant that has been applied that as well may indicate

an issue with the flashing creating a proper seal with the brick. A large gap was observed where

the metal flashing and the brick meet. This will allow the elements as well as pests to enter the

structure.

10

17 a & b- rust appearing along metal, cracks to flashing along parapet wall; improper sealants on flashing

18 a & b- rust along flashing at 3rd flr. rear wall, gap between flashing and brick at parapet wall

The gutter along the rear of the main roof (photo below) is under sized and should be increased

to a 6” gutter to allow for proper drainage. The gutter along the second floor/porch roof could

not be observed because of safety concerns walking over near the edge of that section.

11

Recommendation:

We did not see any indication of current water leaks into the building and drips seen on the roof

rafters and discoloration of the wood seemed to be old. It would be advisable to have a roofing

contractor who is knowledgeable of both metal and rubber membrane roofing materials do a

further inspection.

Windows (including frames, casings and sills) and Doors-

None of the windows are original (see photos Fig. 4 & 5) to the structure and are smaller than the

original openings. One over one wood windows can be found in all the apartments except for the

rear elevation of the third floor which has vinyl sliding windows. The doors all seemed to be

fine except they were not original. The storefronts also seemed to be performing well and did

not show signs of degradation.

Issues:

Almost all the window sills are in some state of decay with some worse than others. The photos

below will show bad to worse.

12

Most windows seem to close properly, however at some had issues with the upper sashes not

closing because the springs had sprung (photos below showing gap at the top of upper sash and

where the locking mechanisms do not meet because of failure).

19 a & b- Gap at top of sash, sash is below lock

Another issue was that air gaps were noticed on at least one window, where it seemed as if the

frame was bigger than the sash. Light could be seen coming through the bottom sash on the left

side. There are gaps between the interior trim and the sill on some windows allowing air to

escape.

The vinyl sliding windows on the rear of the third floor seem to be in good condition. However,

the exterior trim is not painted (wood may be treated), the flashing at the top does not extend to

13

the entire top of the window and the caulking at joints are broken. The frame around the access

door is also missing caulk and paint.

200 a, b, c, & d- peeling paint, caulk failure and flashing issues

Other issues-

Only a few of the interior sashes were starting to rot along the bottom seals.

Recommendation-

Replace windows with a higher quality that would be of higher performance. Since you have

photographic evidence of what the previous windows looked like, this would be an ideal time to

return the building to that look and use the proper sized windows. Almost all the major window

companies deal in historic retrofit windows that would maintain the integrity of the original

design.

14

Rear Porch/Deck-

The rear façade has a lower deck with an upper porch, which is accessed from a staircase, that

allows entry into the second-floor hall and one rear apartment. The porch roof is part of the

original structure and has a spaced, beaded lattice treatment that allows air flow.

Issues:

The rear porch should be evaluated for code compliance and structural integrity. The height of

the deck is 14’ and uses 6” x 6” posts that extend to 16’ (beyond the porch floor with a 4” x 4”

sitting on top). This is not standard framing practice and should be code verified for compliance.

Some stair and deck pickets exceed the 4” minimum required between them. Stair handrails may

not be code compliant because the top rail seems to be too wide. An adjacent grab rail should be

installed to meet code requirements.

15

The porch ceiling is mostly intact with only a few areas of repair and missing lattice strips.

Interior:

1st Floor-

The bottom floor is divided into two storefronts that has a center corridor joining both spaces. A

front, center door allows private access to the original staircase that ascends to the apartments

above on the 2nd and 3rd floors. The retail space on the right (street view) used to be a restaurant

and the commercial hood is still present in the rear storage area of this space. The ceilings are

sheetrocked in both retail areas and the center connector has bead board wainscoting and what

appears to be original window openings that are now used for display areas for product. The

spaces have original hardwood flooring (appears to be Heart of Pine). The right retails space has

a subfloor over the wood floors and then a vinyl tile on top of the subfloor. The walls within the

retail spaces are exposed brick except along the center corridor, which is plaster/sheetrock.

Issues:

Two areas of concern are the exposed brick walls and the floors. Since the building was

originally constructed using lime-based mortar to lay the brick, the mortar is aging and with

expansion/contraction dust and chunks will come loose and fall. The tenant let us know they are

constantly sweeping and dusting areas near the walls.

16

The floors are another issue. The left retail space (street view) where the wood floor boards are

visible, just walking over various places and especially in the middle toward the rear storage

area, the wood planks move. This may indicate old damage to floor joists or the need for

additional support such as a new footing and support pier. No movement was detected in the

center corridor or the right retail space. However, since this floor is covered with a subfloor and

tiles, it is difficult to know if there are issues with this area. A small section of tile was missing

and covered with duct tape. When a termite inspection is done in the crawl space, it would be

advisable to inspect these areas further. At the entry door, the hardwoods abut the granite

threshold and there is a visible gap.

Rear exit door has large gaps around the door frame that could allow air infiltration and signs of

crumbling mortar/plaster could be seen on the floor at the base of the door casing.

2nd Floor-

The second level is divided into three apartments, one accessed from the rear porch. Entry is

from the front street door or from the rear porch. The ceiling has been lowered creating a

plenum space for the mechanicals, wiring and ductwork. Access doors are in the hallway. A

mechanical room is also located on this floor. Some of the ceiling joists in these spaces were

17

stained, but appeared to be from “old” water leaks. The brick was left exposed on the exterior

wall and sheetrocked on the new interior partitions. The floors are a combination of wood,

carpet and vinyl. Some original coal burning fireplaces with cast iron surrounds, mantles and

hearths are still present. The apartment on the right (street view) has an exterior door that is

blocked, possibly for future access to a rebuilt porch. Raised 4-panel doors with transoms and

milled casings along with a molding cap over flat stock baseboard all seem to be original.

21 a, b, & c- Right attic space

212 a, b, c, & d- left side attic space; note stains on ceiling; access doors are sheetrock over plywood

Issues:

On the second-floor landing, a hump can be felt running from the rear doorway toward the stair.

There is very little that can be done with this, however it should be noted within this report. At

the rear door, sloppy workmanship can be seen surrounding the casing and where the sheetrock

hits the brick wall. Spray foam insulation has been used to fill the void and is readily visible.

An area of exposed brick within the hall was repointed using a modern mortar.

The ceiling joist were covered with blown-in insulation and could not be inspected. One issue I

did see was the location of the cooling unit in the right-side apartment. According to the

superintendent, it is within a wall that is totally covered in the living room of this unit. That is

18

not ideal for service and may cause issues later. In the photo below, you can see where the

baseboard was cut and pieced, and the tape lines in the sheetrock.

3rd Floor-

An entry door off the second-floor hall provides access to the stairway to the third-floor

apartment which has a shared kitchen, bathroom, living and dining spaces with bedrooms.

According to the superintendent the current owner rents this space as a “communal rental”. The

brick exterior walls are exposed with interior wall partitions sheetrocked to divide the spaces.

The floors are vinyl, carpet and wood. The bathroom was raised above the main floor height to

provide a space for plumbing lines, according to the superintendent. A rear mechanical room has

an exit door out onto the second-floor roof and access to the main roof. An attic hatch is in the

living room which provides access to the space where the ductwork is located. Blown in

insulation can be observed and direct view to the roof structure.

223 a, b, c, d, e, & f- attic space third floor

19

Issues:

No structural defects were noted within the living areas on this level other than the items listed

above for the windows. The attic looked fine, but as with the second-floor attic, “old” water

stains were present on some of the joists. They did not look “new” or active leaks. The ceiling

joists could not be inspected because of the blown-in insulation.

Conclusion of Building’s Overall Condition:

The building seems to be very sound except for the items noted above. Of the items mentioned,

the rotted window sills are a major concern as is the improper mortar repairs. The windows can

be repaired and made weather tight, but their life expectancy is limited. The TPO roof, which

appears to be in good condition, is near its life expectancy. The rear porch has code issues. Since

most floors are covered, condition is unknown. The crawlspace is a definite concern since it was

inaccessible and with the bouncing of the floor boards in the one retail space. One item of note

is the wood casings, trim, doors, etc. that are original. These all seem to have many layers of

paint and of note latex over oil, which cracks and chips over time. It is cosmetic, but I am sure

lead paint is present under the current top coat.

234 baseboard in rear left apt.- paint starting to lift and chip

Some the workmanship, which was done by the previous owner, was not up to par (see photos

below). Moldings cut and not finished, rear transom window over a door with numerous wood

pieces used to keep it shut.

Along the rear deck there are penetrations both through the brick (noted above) and through one

of the windows going into the storage area of the retail space. Vegetation is growing along the

edge of the building near the hvac units. Also, numerous wires can be seen along the deck of the

first floor. A code review of these items may be necessary.

20

Tax Credits:

Depending on your future plans for this building you may want to consider using Historic Tax

Credit for renovation. These are extremely beneficial for buildings such as this and help defray

the costs incurred by the owner. Below are excerpts from the Virginia Department of Historic

Resources outlining what tax credits are. If you have any questions concerning these please

contact us or VDHR, Chris Novelli (804) 482-6097. He is the coordinator for the tax credit

division.

Rehabilitation Tax Credits are dollar-for-dollar reductions in income tax liability for taxpayers

who rehabilitate historic buildings. Credits are available from both the federal government and

the Commonwealth of Virginia.

The amount of the credit is based on total rehabilitation costs. The federal credit is 20% of

eligible rehabilitation expenses. The state credit is 25% of eligible rehabilitation expenses. In

some cases, taxpayers can qualify under both programs, allowing them to claim credits of 45%

of their eligible rehabilitation expenses.

The credits described above are available only for Certified Historic Structures, defined as

follows.

Under the federal program, a certified historic structure is one that is either: Listed individually

on the National Register of Historic Places, or certified as “contributing” to a district that is so

listed.

Under the state program, a certified historic structure is one that is: Individually listed on the

Virginia Landmarks Register, or certified as eligible for listing, or certified as a contributing

structure in a district that is so listed.

The rehabilitation work for the entire project must meet The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards

for Rehabilitation. If the project does not meet these standards, no part of the credit may be

claimed. If the work is certified as meeting these standards, the credit is based on all eligible

expenses.

Technically speaking, eligible expenses include any work that is properly chargeable to a

building’s capital account in connection with a certified rehabilitation. Essentially, all work done

to structural components of the building will be eligible, as well as certain soft costs such as–

-architectural and engineering fees,

-construction period interest and taxes,

21

-construction management costs, and

-reasonable developer fees.

Also eligible are expenses related to new heating, plumbing and electrical systems, updating

kitchens and bathrooms, and compliance with ADA and fire suppression systems and fire

escapes.

Acquisition costs, however, and any expenses attributable to additions or enlargements of the

building, are not eligible. Under the federal program, site work and landscaping elements are not

eligible expenses. Under the state program, certain site work may be eligible.