My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2020 03 16 CANCELLED
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
>
2020 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2020 03 16 CANCELLED
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/19/2021 2:45:15 PM
Creation date
6/23/2020 2:24:52 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Also Known As (aka)
Meeting Cancelled
Meeting Date
3/16/2020
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Cross-Reference
Meeting Cancelled
Quality Check
10/19/2021
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
175
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Historic Preservation Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />February 24th, 2020 <br />Page 4 of 14 <br />Klemme and Selvoski discussed the budget numbers. <br />Keller asked what the demolition of the site utilities referred to. <br />Selvoski replied that the applicant could answer that question. <br />James Hopperstad, owner, representative, and architect for Christina Dickinson, at <br />1015 Confidence Drive in Longmont, introduced himself and the builder, Jimmy Moore <br />of Petra Custom Builders. Hopperstad responded to Commissioner Keller's question, <br />explain that to lift the house, all wires and duct work had to be cut off. <br />Moore added that the foundation was structurally insufficient. In raising the house, then <br />demolishing, excavating, and pouring a new foundation, the utilities would have to be <br />pulled back. <br />Ulm asked about the porch roof line. <br />Hopperstad replied that the pitch of the roof and the connection point to the existing <br />house would remain the same, meaning that the porch post would lower about 4 inches. <br />Ulm asked if the main floor elevation and porch elevations were staying the same. <br />Hopperstad replied the foundation was so close to grade level that it needed to be <br />raised about a foot but that the grade in the front would be the same under the porch <br />since the grade would slope upward. <br />Moore explained that there were elements related to the foundation changes, including <br />site grading, mechanical and electrical, and the environmental hazards, which all had to <br />happen because of what it would take to raise the house. He noted that there would be <br />asbestos and lead in the structure that would require remediation, which would be a <br />large expense. Because the house was lower than both neighboring houses, they also <br />wanted to capitalize on the opportunity to make the house structurally sound and <br />maintain integrity, and not create drainage problems for the neighbors. He noted that <br />raising the house would also affect the maintenance on the chimney and made that <br />process harder and therefore require extraordinary work to preserve the chimneys. <br />Klemme asked about the asbestos abatement. <br />Moore replied that they had already done the testing and there was lead and asbestos <br />on multiple aspects of the house, all directly related to what they needed to interact with <br />to unbolt the house. He added that he had already solicited multiple bids. <br />Hopperstad added that the original numbers had been alarming and that Moore had <br />gone back and double-checked and gotten additional quotes. He asked the Commission <br />to comment on what they thought would be a reasonable amount for the work. <br />5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.