HPC minutes 060111 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Historic Preservation Commission Minutes June 1, 2011 4 II-A-2. Maintain and protect the historic topography, significant views and vistas, accessory structures, roads, walkways, fences, walls, and plantings. Avoid removing, relocating, or radically changing existing landscape features (including plants and grade) that contribute to the overall character of the site. Standard II-A-2 does not appear to apply to this project. The main house is not visible from the road. The color of the proposed new roof is very similar to the color of the existing roof, limiting the visual impact of the different material. II-A-3. Maintain historic site features and plantings through appropriate methods. Seek the advice of a professional to protect site features and plantings from damage during or as a result of construction activities. Standard II-A-3 appears to be met by the proposal. The application speaks to provisions to protect existing vegetation/landscaping around the main house during the roof replacement. Summary In staff’s determination, eight (8) design standards apply to the proposal: II-A-3, III-A-1, III-B-1, III-B-3, III-B-4, III-B-6, III-B-20, and III-B-21. Certificate of Appropriateness Application 01-2011 appears to comply with all eight, design standards. ************************ Cathleen Turner representing the Board of the Friends of Moorefields was present at the meeting to answer questions. HPC Discussion of ITEM #8: ITEMS FOR DECISION Certificate of Appropriateness – Moorefields HPC Chair, Todd Dickinson introduced the application along with his knowledge of the site and condition of the building. Dickinson explained that the HPC would typically prefer that a historic wood roof be replaced with a new wood roof, but went on the describe the history of this particular cedar shake roof, its quick deterioration and the costs associated with maintaining wood shingle roofs. Members discussed with Turner the best color for the proposed fiberglass shingles indicating that one shade would look similar to a new wood shingle roof and another similar to a weathered shingle wood roof. Dickinson went through the staff report section-by-section and concurred with staff’s identification of the design standards that applied to the project and the determination of whether the proposal complied with the applicable standard. Gilfillen asked for a more specific description of the proposed ridge vent, if it was to be a continuous metal unit? Dickinson described a typical asphalt ridge vent unit used in this area where a specialized baffle is covered with a shingle material so that it appears to be a traditional shingle ridge cap from a distance. Members requested as a condition of approval that the roof vent be constructed of the design described by Dickinson, a shingle-over design (self-sealing shingle cap over the ridge baffle) to match the roof shingles. Members also discussed the proposed use of pine to repair deteriorated sections of roof trim, fascia boards and soffits. Turner read through the written estimates and noted that the reference to pine in the COA application was an error. The contractor’s proposal specified Spanish Red Cedar for the roof trim repairs. Dickinson referred to page 27 of Design Standards for Orange County Local Historic Landmarks and Local Historic Districts, Section III B Materials: wood, Masonry, Architectural Metals, and Roofing, “The HPC typically recommends the use of traditional materials for in-kind repairs and selective part replacement. However, since old growth southern yellow pine is no longer readily available, the HPC recommends the use of western red cedar, slow growth cypress, pressure treated redried pine, redwood and juniper, for exterior use. These species are more resistant for exterior use.”