Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />The existing shape and materials of the roof shall be retained. All architectural features which <br />give the roof its essential character shall be retained, including dormer windows, cupolas, <br />cornices, brackets, chimneys, cresting and weather vanes. <br /> <br />Recommended <br />Whenever possible, the original shape and materials of the roof shall be restored. Particular effort <br />should be made to retain materials such as slate, tile, and other unique materials not commonly found <br />in new construction. Roof covering which is deteriorated beyond repair should be replaced with <br />new material that matches as closely as possible the original in composition, size, shape, color and <br />texture. Gutters and downspouts are often a necessary adjunct in order to prevent deterioration <br />of the structure; they should be maintained whenever possible or replaced with a style <br />comparable and suitable to the architectural period. <br /> <br />Prohibited <br />Nothing shall be done to change the essential character of the roof as viewed from the thoroughfare by <br />adding architectural features or large unsightly fixtures, or by using materials inappropriate to the style <br />of the house. The roof shall not be stripped of architectural features important to its character. <br /> <br />Not Recommended <br />Overhanging eaves, soffits, brackets and gables should not be covered or enclosed when adding metal <br />or vinyl siding to a building. <br /> <br />STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval. <br /> <br /> <br />Report compiled by <br />Elicia Feasel, Historic Preservation Administrator <br /> <br />Administrator Feasel explained the reasoning behind the change in recommendation as due to research conducted by Staff into <br />the appropriate way to handle asbestos roofing, as well as the received material from the applicant. <br /> <br />PETITIONER COMMENTS: N/A <br /> <br />COMMISSION DISCUSSION: <br />Commissioner Brazinsky explained that, based upon the Staff report, she was prepared to approve the application. <br />Commissioner Ponder wanted clarification regarding the finish and trim work of the new metal roof. <br />Mr. Simmons provided details regarding the current configuration of the roof, and how the new product would be installed, <br />conveying that the new edge metal would be bent to replicate the concave crown molding by hand. The gutters would <br />cover most of the fascia. <br />Commissioner Hertel asked for clarification regarding the appearance of the proposed options. The homeowner has not <br />specified a particular manufacturer of the architectural shingles. Commissioner Hertel asked for examples regarding <br />the appropriateness of the roof with the metal roof. Discussion resulted regarding different roof options that mimic <br />asbestos roof material. <br />Mr. Simmons discussed a concrete tile option, which is ¾” thick, versus the 3/8” option that is being discussed. <br />Commissioner Hertel asked the petitioner if he was ok with living in a structure that would have asbestos material covered, w ith <br />concern for the long term lifespan of the roof. <br />Mr. Nowicki stated that there was only one person living in the house – him – and he was ‘ok’ with it. <br /> <br />PUBLIC DISCUSSION: N/A <br /> <br /> <br />Commissioner Brazinsky made a motion to approve COA #2019-0603A. Seconded by <br />Commissioner Ponder. <br /> <br /> <br />Four in favor, one opposed. <br />Vote: 4 – 1. Motion to approve COA #2019-0603A is passed. <br />Application #2019-0603A is approved. <br /> <br /> <br />