Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHPC minutes 060111Historic Preservation Commission Minutes June 1, 2011 Page 1 MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION June 1, 2011 MEMBERS PRESENT: Todd Dickinson, Tom Allison, Steve Rankin, Statler Gilfillen, Rob Golan and Alice Remini MEMBERS ABSENT or EXCUSED: GUESTS PRESENT: Cathleen Turner, Friends of Moorefields STAFF: Rich Shaw and Tina Moon, Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation ITEM #1: CALL TO ORDER Chair Dickinson called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. ITEM #2: ROLL CALL Dickinson requested that staff call the roll; six HPC members were in attendance. ITEM #3: INTRODUCTIONS OF GUESTS/VISITORS Dickinson introduced Cathleen Turner to the HPC. Turner sits on the Board of the Friends of Moorefields and was attending the meeting to speak on behalf of the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Moorefields, an Orange County local historic landmark. ITEM #4: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA None. ITEM #5: APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. April 27, 2011 Golan requested a minor correction. Allison motioned to approve the minutes as corrected. Golan seconded the motion. The HPC voted unanimously to approve the minutes from the April 27, 2011 meeting. ITEM #6: REPORTS a. CLG Report Dickinson asked if everyone had received a copy of the State Historic Preservation Office’s (SHPO) letter of approval. Staff noted that the SHPO commented on the County’s need to fill HPC member vacancies in a more, timely manner. b. Memorandums for Work Plan (Building Stewardship & Local Landmark Program) Staff reported that the memorandums had been forwarded to the DEAPR Department Head to be submitted to the Management. ITEM #7: PUBLIC HEARINGS None. ITEM #8: ITEMS FOR DECISION a. Certificate of Appropriateness – Moorefields ************************* The following staff report was presented to the HPC at the meeting to aid in the discussion of this item. FINDINGS OF FACT (Staff’s determination of Findings of Fact) Historic Preservation Commission Minutes June 1, 2011 2 Scope of Work 1. The Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation has received a COA application from the Moorefields Foundation (represented by Barry Jacobs) proposing to replace the existing cedar shake roof with fiberglass (asphalt) laminated architectural shingles by CertainTeed INDEPENDENCE, color “weathered wood.” Proposed shingles are algae resistant and have a 50-year warranty. (Roofing sample provided at meeting.) 2. The scope of work includes: removing the existing roof, repairing or replacing deteriorated sheathing to match existing, installing a titanium synthetic roof underlayment prior to application of new shingles. New flashing and vent covers will be installed, using appropriate fasteners. New shingle roof will have ridge vents. 3. Roof trim—fascia and soffits—will be inspected and repaired/replaced as appropriate, in pine, to match existing. New wood trim will be painted to match existing. 4. Existing gutters will be repaired, as necessary, and rehung. 5. Foundation plantings will be protected during work. Extent of the HPC’s Purview The Historic Preservation Commission’s purview of this site is limited to the exterior of all structures and landscaping features. Relevant Design Standards Based on the information in the application, the follow design standards are relevant to a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace an existing roof, and replace sections of deteriorated roof trim on a Local Landmark building: • The standards applying to roofing (III-B-20 through III-B-22), rooflines and roof details (III-C-15 and III- C-16) • The standards that apply to maintenance (III-A-1 and III-A-2) and repairs to wood surfaces (III-B-1 through III-B-6), and • To a lesser extent, two of the standards on setting (II-A-2 and II-A-3) that refer to the protection of the overall view or vista and the protection of existing landscaping. Determination of Design Standard Compliance III-B-20. The original roof material should be preserved whenever possible. Standard III-B-20 appears to be met by the proposal. The following is an excerpt from page 30 of Design Standards for Orange County Local Historic Landmarks and Local Historic Districts, “The HPC discourages property owners from re-roofing contributing buildings with asphalt shingles when information about their historic roofing is available, unless the additional expense of another material would cause undue hardship for the owner.” According to the application materials, the existing roof was installed in the early 1980s and began to show serious signs of wear by 2000. The applicant began a series of emergency patch repairs to control water infiltration in 2008. The roof has continued to deteriorate, and now the roof trim—fascias and soffits—are showing signs of water damage as well. The subject property is owned and funded by a foundation and governed by board. The proposed roofing material has been used in neighboring historic districts. The color was selected to mimic the look of the 1980s original wood shingles. III-B-21. Roof trim (fascia, soffit etc.) should be maintained and preserved. Necessary repairs shall be made using the same materials and the same pattern as the original detail. Standard III-B-21 appears to be met by the proposal. Specifics regarding the repair and replacement of deteriorated sections of roof trim—fascia and soffit—outlined in the application speak to the use of pine to match the existing material and painted to match the existing finish. III-B-22. Roof material on new additions should be compatible with existing roofs in material, type, color, etc Standard III-B-22 does not apply to this project. No new construction/additions are proposed. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes June 1, 2011 3 III-C-15. The original roof pitch and the ridge height should be retained. The construction of any new dormers or skylights should not be visible from any public road and should be on the least visible sections of the roof from within the property boundary. Standard III-C-15 does not apply to this project. The proposal does not change the roof pitch, height or add new features such as dormers. III-C-16. All chimneys should be preserved and repaired using the same material, patterns, and methods as the original construction. New chimneys should not visually compete with original chimneys. Standard III-C-16 does not apply to this project. The proposal does not include changes to existing chimneys nor requests to construct new chimneys. III-A-1. All buildings located within designated landmark properties should be maintained properly. (See Section B Materials: Wood, Masonry, Architectural Metals, and Roofing for more information about the appropriate techniques for different building elements.) Standard III-A-1 appears to be met by the proposal. The COA is a request to replace the aging roof and repair deteriorated roof trim—both items are critical components of regular maintenance and weatherproofing to keep water from infiltrating the building. III-A-2. Trees and vegetation surrounding Local Landmark buildings should be trimmed and pruned as necessary to prevent long-term damage to adjacent structures. Standard III-A-2 does not appear to apply to this project. The applicant does not propose to modify existing vegetation other than to protect it during the roof replacement. III-B-1. Retain and preserve historic wood fabric such as siding, trim and details, and wood features that are significant in defining the overall historic character of a contributing building, structure, or site. Standard III-B-1 appears to be met by the proposal. While the scope of work does not include repair to key features such as porches, windows or doors or window/door surrounds, it does include repairs to the wood roofline—fascia, soffit, eaves, etc., in an effort to preserve the original building as much as possible through maintenance. III-B-2. Maintain and protect wood features and surfaces with appropriate methods, always using the gentlest effective method. Regular maintenance should include termite inspection and/or treatment. Standard III-B-2 does not appear to apply to this project. This standard appears to speak more to structural/foundation repairs than roof repairs. The proposal does not include sandblasting or other abrasive treatment. It does involved painting new replacement materials to match existing. The HPC may wish to request more information and/or recommend that the applicant paint all of the roof trim rather than just the replaced sections—to ensure the long-term protection and a uniform appearance. III-B-3. Repair deteriorated or damaged wood features through traditional patching, consolidating (with epoxy), piecing, or reinforcing by other accepted preservation methods. Standard III-B-3 appears to be met by the proposal. The application specifies that repairs to the “damaged eaves be will removed, replaced with pine facsimiles of the originals and repainted.” III-B-4. Replace deteriorated or damaged wood features, if necessary, to match the original in design, material, dimension, and detail. Replace only the deteriorated portion or detail of a feature rather than the entire feature whenever possible. Consider compatible substitute materials only if the use of original material is not technically feasible. It is not appropriate to replace or cover wooden features such as siding, trim, or window sash with contemporary substitute materials such as vinyl, masonite, or aluminum. In most cases, the HPC will deny requests to do so. Covering original fabric with substitute materials can trap moisture Standard III-B-4 appears to be met by the proposal. The application specifies that repairs to the “damaged eaves be will removed, replaced with pine facsimiles of the originals and repainted.” III-B-5. Replace a missing wood feature with a new feature based upon accurate documentation of the original or a new design compatible with the scale, size, material, and color of the Local Landmark building. It is not appropriate to introduce wood features or details to a Local Landmark building in an effort to create a false historic appearance. Standard III-B-5 does not appear to apply to this project. No new features are proposed as part of this project. III-B-6. Most wood buildings should be protected with paint or clear wood preservative to protect the material from exposure to weather. The HPC does not regulate paint colors, but recommends the use of quality paint products in traditional colors. Standard III-B-6 appears to be met by the proposal. The scope of work specifies that repairs to the fascia and soffit will be painted to match the existing wood trim. 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.” Historic Preservation Commission Minutes June 1, 2011 5 Members requested as a second condition of approval that the wood used for roof trim (fascia and soffit) replacement/repair be of an outdoor quality wood such as cedar or its weather resistant equivalent. Remini referenced the note in the staff report related to design standard III-B-2, “The HPC may wish to request more information and/or recommend that the applicant paint all of the roof trim rather than just the replaced sections—to ensure the long-term protection and a uniform appearance.” Remini expressed interest in requesting that all of the roof trim be painted as part of this application approval. Turner (Friends of Moorefields,applicant) expressed initial support of the suggestion. Dickinson said that he felt it went beyond the HPC’s purview to request additional work for a property with a limited budget, and one that was being repaired in phases—a phased project with a phased budget. Gilfillen said that while it made sense to prime and paint two coats on the repaired wood trim while the gutters were down, it was, in his opinion, the owner’s option. Turner indicated that the exterior of the main house at Moorefields is scheduled to be painted in the near future. Based on the information from Turner, HPC members decided not to require that all the roof trim be painted as part of this application. ACTION: Gilfillen__ Made a MOTION TO: APPROVE, APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS, or DENY Gilfillen made a motion to accept the application in agreement of staff ‘s determination that design standards: 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 apply, with the issues of the two conditions discussed: the ridge vent shall be covered with a self-sealed shingle to match the roof and that the wood repairs shall be of an outdoor quality wood such as cedar. Based on: SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND FINDING OF FACT As outlined in determination of applicable standards in Staff’s determination of the Findings of Fact on the preceding pages. CONDITIONS: 1. The proposed roof shall be constructed with ridge vents using the ShingleVent II “shingle over” design (or a self-sealing shingle cap over the ridge baffle) to match the roof shingles and limit visibility. (Note staff added the reference to ShingleVent II after researching the corrected term for the shingle-over design for the CertainTeed line of roofing products.) 2. The proposed roof shall be constructed with ridge vents using The wood used for roof trim (fascia and soffits) replacement/repair shall be an outdoor quality wood such as cedar or its weather resistant equivalent. Steve Rankin Seconded the Motion Vote: 1. Statler Gilfillen 2. Steve Rankin 5. Alice Remini 3. Tom Allison 6. Todd Dickinson 4. Rob Golan 7. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes June 1, 2011 Page 6 b. June meeting Staff explained that the May meeting was postponed until June 1st to accommodate the certified mailing period for properties surrounding Moorefields, part of the COA application process. Moon asked if the HPC would like to hold a second meeting at the regular time on June 22nd or skip ahead until the regular meeting time in July— July 27th? HPC members unanimously agreed to hold their next meeting on July 27th. ITEM #9: DISCUSSION ITEMS a. Membership Golan spoke to the HPC candidate that Rankin had suggested a few months ago. Moon invited the candidate to the meeting, but did not receive any response. b. National Historic Preservation Month Activities – follow up/debriefing Moon briefly reported the month’s activities: the Resolution for the Board of County Comimssioners and the Photo Contest held in junction with the Historic Foundation of Hillsborough and Orange County. The preservation booth at Last Fridays, was cancelled due to inclement weather. Members discussed trying to operate the HPC booth for another month, but had difficulty choosing a month due to summer vacation plans. c. 2011 Work Plan – Monthly Update & Progress Check HPC members briefly reviewed the items on the work plan chart and discussed scheduling for the upcoming meetings. 1. Preservation Summit Follow Up Due to the late hour, this item was postponed until the next meeting. 2. Demolition by Neglect Members also asked about demolition by neglect ordinances. Moon offered a brief update on her research on this topic since the last meeting and offered to continue to pursue examples from other jurisdictions that could serve as a model. 3. Strategic Archaeology Plan Due to the late hour, this item was postponed until the next meeting. ITEM #10: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS and handouts at meeting ITEM #11: ADJOURNMENT Golan motioned to adjourn the meeting at 8:55 p.m. Allison seconded the motion. Next meeting scheduled for July 27, 2011.