Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2015 08 17

Home Browse Search

Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes July 20, 2015 Page 7 of 13 Fasick stated the connection between the existing and the proposed should be lighter looking — more of a connector. She believes having it dark in color makes it look heavier than she might want it to be. Johnson stated the connector piece is intended to maintain the rhythm of the proposed glass of the new building, but also needs to appear as a void. Fasick stated she was appreciative of the second story step back. Watson asked staff what was the nexus for the new construction grant. Trice read from staff's report the reasoning behind staff's recommendation for the new construction grant. Watson stated Johnson did a great job and provided a lot of thought and design in the proposal. He stated, however, he does not believe the proposal is typical of Louisville, especially when the taxpayers' money is being used. Stewart stated he believes we have conflicting requirements between our criteria and our guidelines in regards to materials being used. He said he would lean more towards our criteria because it requires materials which are commonly used in Louisville. Koertje stated it is a great structure and the rehabilitation grant is appropriate. He stated the new construction does not have a style typical to Louisville, but the scale of the new construction is appropriate. He stated the connector detracts from the existing structure. Watson asked Koertje if a smaller connector would make the new construction more palatable. Koertje stated it would be better if it were smaller. He stated if it isn't changed it won't stop him from voting positively on this project. Watson asked the commission if the resolutions were fine as drafted. Stewart stated there are some tweaks needed. Fahey stated she believed most of the comments are based on the fact it is a corner lot. She said she does not believe there should be additional conditions placed on this property just because it is a corner lot. Watson stated his concern is primarily due to the use of taxpayers' money. Discussion ensued regarding the criteria for review. Stewart recommends the commission vote on the resolutions separately. Watson made motion to approve the landmark.