Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2014 03 17

Home Browse Search

Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes February 10, 2014 Page 4 of 11 Stewart stated there could be a way to retain the existing gable which would then allow the house to comply with the Secretary of Interior standards. The proposal changes the appearance of the house to where it would no longer qualify as a contributing structure because the alterations are too great. Feaster stated they are also trying to get more light into the existing house and believes the shed roof will allow them to achieve more natural light. Stewart asked staff if there was any way to make a finding to state the addition alters the existing structure but not too much. Robinson read the landmark eligibility criteria from the Louisville Municipal Code (LMC). Fasick asked how reversible the proposed porch would be. Feaster stated it would be easy to reverse, but wanted it to be stated there isn’t any evidence of what the porch looked like prior to 1948. Watson stated appears to be an age of significance prior to 1948 when stucco was placed on the structure. He stated he was pleased the ship-lap siding was returning. He added the dormer is less reversible than the porch. However, he is pleased they are requesting to retain most of the structure instead of total demolition. Fahey agrees replacing the wood siding is a move in the right direction, and likes the idea of having reversible elements. She stated the Dalpiso family actually never lived there, they rented the house. She stated the social history is not that strong. She stated she is leaning towards releasing the demolition permit. Stewart states the design is still in character with Old Town and appreciates the owner’s point of view. He stated the alterations, to date, have been significant enough to make it not eligible architecturally. Stewart made a motion to find the structure does not meet the criteria for landmarking based on social history and alterations to the structure since 1948, and therefore the demolition should be released. Fahey seconded the motion. Motion carried 4 to 1. Fasick voting no. Discussion – Acme Mine Site Stewart asked if we could alter the agenda to move item number 9, discussion of the Acme Mine site, up for discussion. Watson seconded the motion. Motion unanimously approved.