Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2020 12 21

Home Browse Search

Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes 7 December 2020 Page 2 of 5 provided a warranty for use of the material at the pitch in question. She also stated that staff had shared the details of the project with someone at the local roofing company that the City uses for facilities, who had shared that the installation process would need to be different and the material was not a good option for the entire home, but that the specific circumstances of the porch project was feasible. Ritchie noted that the roofer had not visited the site. She added that Chief Building Official Chad Root was also present at the meeting to comment on the viability of the roof. Ritchie stated that the applicant had provided a letter from an engineer, which maintained that it was not recommended to install asphalt shingles in the manner required. Ritchie shared the research she had done about historic metal roofs, showing a property in Boulder at 1733 Canyon that was similar in scale and context to the 816 Lincoln, observing, as well, that historic metal roofs were generally unfinished. Root stated that the manufacturer allowed the shingles at the roof's pitch. He noted that the warranty in that case was applied for up to 12 years, which was shorter than the other warranties. He was not able to identify the full warranty term, but guessed it might be a 20-25 year full warranty. Klemme asked if they had used IKO shingle on the rest of the house. Root and Ritchie confirmed. Troy Miller, 816 Lincoln Avenue, stated that there was historical precedent showing a standing - seam metal roof in the area. He described letter from the project engineer, which recommended against installing the shingles. He noted that typically in Louisville, if you do something that is altered from the plan, a stamped engineer letter was generally accepted. Miller stated that he thought the manufacturer was saying both that it would and would not be warrantied. He asked the commissioners to consider how they would think about the situation with their own homes. He stated that this was not the ideal or typically accepted way to do this. Haley and Mr. Miller discussed processes for the City reviewing building plans, with Haley stating that there was a different procedure for general construction versus a landmarked property. Klemme asked if Mr. Miller had worked with an IKO-certified roofer. Miller replied that he couldn't comment. Dunlap noted that the materials referred to different pitches and asked which was the correct pitch, and asked if the engineer reviewed the plan on -site. Miller replied that the engineer had not visited the site. He noted that the 3:12 pitch was a mistake when the plans were submitted and that it was a 2:12 pitch roof. Dunlap asked for staff verification on the roof pitch. Ritchie replied that the architect acknowledged that it was probably somewhere between a 2:12 and a 3:12 pitch and that it varied across the roof. 2 4