Laserfiche WebLink
Historic Preservation Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />16 November 2020 <br />Page 8 of 9 <br />been done, she noted that it was a low pitch so it would not be prominent and it could be taken <br />back to the original fairly easily. <br />Ritchie shared that the Code included language that stated, <br />"New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in <br />such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of <br />the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired." <br />Ritchie added that there could be an option to request an exemption from the Alteration <br />Certificate under the following language: <br />"If an applicant is unable to meet the applicable criteria set forth in this chapter, <br />the applicant may request an exemption from the Alteration Certificate <br />requirement. The applicant must provide adequate documentation or other <br />evidence acceptable to the commission to establish qualification for one of the <br />exemptions listed in this section. The commission may require that information <br />provided by the applicant be substantiated either by professionals in an <br />applicable field, or by thorough documentation of how the information was <br />obtained. The commission may request additional information from the applicant <br />as necessary to make informed decisions." <br />Ritchie stated that the specific examples for exemptions in the Code included economic <br />hardship or undue hardship. <br />Klemme stated that it was an honest mistake to put the roof on and not follow the process in this <br />instance, but it could set a precedent for future applicants to do work and then ask for it to be <br />forgiven. <br />Dunlap stated that he understood the applicants to say that there is not another structural <br />option, but he thought he heard Director Zuccaro state that there were other options. <br />Klemme replied that a manufacturer can say one thing and the person installing it can say <br />another, so it was the person providing the labor who would be willing to do it. <br />Johnson clarified that the manufacturer showed a solution for the low -pitch situation, but the <br />product was made nationally and it was not going to work here under Colorado weather <br />conditions. He reiterated that this was not anecdotal information, that it was the reality. <br />Parris stated that she could be convinced that the roof could be removed down the road and <br />replaced with asphalt and she believed Mr. Miller and Mr. Johnson that the asphalt shingles <br />were not a good option in this case. She stated that it was important to state the Commission's <br />reasoning, to avoid leaving it open to interpretation that it was because the roof was complete. <br />Haley added that it would have made their decision easier if there were letters from Colorado <br />roofing companies about asphalt shingles or if examples of a historic metal roof in Louisville. <br />Dunlap asked if there was an option to request that kind of information. <br />Ritchie replied that if the Commission could request additional information. She added that staff <br />would need to look at the Code to see if an exemption would be appropriate. She noted that <br />reliance on the criteria was an important way to maneuver through this. <br />8 <br />