Laserfiche WebLink
Historic Preservation Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />16 November 2020 <br />Page 7 of 9 <br />Zuccaro replied that there was a different installation method for the 2:12 that was probably not <br />preferred but for historic preservation you don't always do the preferred, you try to maintain the <br />historic facade. <br />Dunlap noted that one of the controversies in approving this structure was that the amount that <br />was saved was pretty small compared to what was being added, and this additional change <br />would decrease the amount that was being saved. <br />Parris agreed with staff findings. She added that the metal on the front porch took it further away <br />from preserving the original section. <br />Keller stated that he did not have a problem with the metal. From a homeowner perspective it <br />was a better material and he didn't have a problem with it historically. <br />Klemme stated that she would not have gone for the metal roof if it had been part of the original <br />proposal. She was okay with the other changes. <br />Dunlap moved to approve the staff proposal to reverse the porch roof. Parris seconded. <br />Johnson asked the Commission to consider, before voting, that his comments around the ability <br />to roof a low -pitch roof were hardly anecdotal. He emphasized that the owner may not be able <br />to find someone to apply the shingles. He stated that that was a big risk to ask of the <br />homeowner. He noted that the porch was preserved and he did not think that there was <br />anything lost with a metal roof. It was not changing the form, and it was, in fact, making the <br />original form work. He cautioned the Commission against saying that one element tipped the <br />scale when so much effort went into making the porch and the front of the house work. <br />Miller added that he did believe there was some evidence based on the flashing that there was <br />a metal roof on the porch at one time. <br />Dunlap asked if the applicant would want a stay of a month to see if a contractor would do the <br />shingled roof. <br />Miller replied that he did not want a stay and noted that the roofing issue had held off the <br />release of any grant funds and the final permits. <br />Klemme asked how many contractors they had consulted. <br />Miller replied that for this situation he spoke to three roofing contractors. The two <br />recommendations were either go with the standing seam or the rubber roof. <br />Commissioner Dunlap, Mr. Miller, and Mr. Johnson discussed the uses and appropriateness of <br />different types of membrane and rolled roofs. Mr. Miller and Mr. Johnson explained that those <br />kinds of roofs would not be appropriate or desirable for the situation. Planner Ritchie concurred <br />with Mr. Johnson's statements on membrane roofs, adding that they were not historically <br />desirable. <br />Haley asked if the metal roof could be taken off and reverted to shingles at any point. She <br />acknowledged that it would not have been approved in the original process, but having already <br />7 <br />