Historic Preservation Commission Minutes 2020 11 16

Home Browse Search

Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes 16 November 2020 Page 6 of 9 that the property owner and his roofer had made the decision to go with a metal roof for those reasons and he did not think the owner had intended to go around the process. Troy Miller, property owner, stated that the alternative roofing option with the low pitch of the roof was to put up a rubber roof instead of a metal roof, which he did not think it would look attractive or historical. He noted that since the flashing and counter -flashing led him to believe that the standing -seam metal would be a better choice. He stated that he had a learning curve himself as this was his first time doing a preservation project and it had not been his intention to go around the process. Dunlap asked if a red flag had been raised during the roofing process indicating that the change should go back through the Planning Department. Johnson replied that he was not involved in that conversation. Dunlap asked for more information on the process, asking if it was for cost -savings. Miller replied that it was not an option from a warranty perspective. He noted that the metal roof was more expensive. Klemme asked why the roofing material had been suggested with the 3:12 pitch if they knew they couldn't use that material with that pitch. Johnson replied that he had used the shingles on lower -pitched roofs in certain circumstances and the roofer was willing, but it had been a while since that was a viable option. The issue was that there had been construction defects that had occurred and opinions had changed on whether the material was appropriate for that low of a pitch. Johnson added that last year the Commission asked why the front porch wouldn't be a metal roof. He noted that there were not a lot of detailed photos of what homes in Louisville really looked like originally. Klemme replied that she understood that things changed and that made sense. She asked if the porch was original to the house. Miller replied that it was original. Haley noted that the issue was a big deal for weathering reasons, and noted that the metal roof could be changed back at some point. Zuccaro stated that if the roofing material was specified in the Alteration Certificate it would have to be maintained. He added that if you think the metal material was appropriate for the historical aspects that would be a good way to approve the material. He noted that it was Code - compliant to install the shingles and that it was approved for use at that pitch by the manufacturer. He urged the Commission to base its decision on how to maintain the historic facade. If the warranty issues were the deciding factor, staff could verify those issues but Director Zuccaro did not think that they had enough information on that at this time. Dunlap asked Director Zuccaro if he meant that there was an option for asphalt shingles. 6