Laserfiche WebLink
Historic Preservation Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />7 December 2020 <br />Page 4 of 5 <br />shingles were a hazard or a danger. She added that the Boulder house with the metal roofing <br />could be used as evidence but it was pushing it a little bit that it wasn't found in Louisville and <br />she thought that having just one in Boulder wasn't an overwhelming trend. As a homeowner, <br />she was sympathetic to wanting to make good investments in a home, and she acknowledged <br />the waste element in having to redo something that had already been done. However, Haley <br />stated that the program preserved architectural integrity and, while it had a lot of flexibility, the <br />program required compromise and she felt that the project was already a compromise. <br />Miller stated that he agreed that the Commission had compromised and he had compromised, <br />as well. He noted that it was not ideal to preserve the portion and build an addition to a house <br />that was built in 1910. He stated that he was working on another landmarked project and that he <br />was warrantied that project. He stated that the engineer being in Ohio was not relevant as he <br />was the engineer for the project. He noted that they were able to meet over video conferencing. <br />Haley clarified that the Commission had discussed that the warranty would be shorter but would <br />still be warrantied. <br />Miller replied that that was not his experience. <br />Klemme stated that the preferred brand roofer needed to see the project. She noted that once it <br />was landmarked things became more complicated in terms of getting warrantied. <br />Haley asked for clarification on the installer warranty versus the manufacturer warranty. She <br />noted that it seemed like similar companies would warranty a product around here with that <br />slope as long as they're installed correctly, and with the evidence before the Commission it <br />seemed like there would be at least a limited warranty available. <br />Miller replied that all he could go by was what he had heard from the people he talked to and <br />the answer was that they were not going to warranty it. He added that he gave credence to the <br />engineer who was certifying the whole house. <br />Klemme stated that it was an unfortunate circumstance but she never would have approved the <br />Alteration Certificate with this roof. <br />Zuccaro reminded the commissioners that they could approve the application if they thought it <br />was an appropriate alteration or they could approve it if they thought it was a hardship case <br />under the criteria. He noted that the City awarded grants because preservation projects were <br />generally more expensive. <br />Staff and commissioners discussed the definitions of hardship and the options for decisions <br />based on the criteria. <br />Ritchie read the relevant language: <br />An applicant requesting an exemption based on undue hardship must show that the <br />application of the alteration certificate criteria creates a situation substantially <br />inadequate to meet the applicant's needs because of specific health or safety issues. <br />Ritchie stated that the Commission could lean on this language if there were enough concern <br />about the viability of the roof. <br />4 <br />