Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2016 04 18

Home Browse Search

Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes March 21, 2016 Page 11 of 26 Stewart asks is the garage existing and are you are adding to the west of it. Burgess says there is a single car garage and we are adding to the west. Haley asks if you know about the overall condition of the existing house as far as foundation and general structure. Burgess says we plan to use the house. We will have to underpin some of the existing foundation because of expansive soil and a high water table. The foundation is fairly low. There is a series of very shallow walls in the foundation. Haley says with having to do some structural stuff to the actual house such as asbestos removal, is the money we would give you to save it was not appealing to the applicant? Burgess says energy efficiency is a significant concern for the original windows. Restoring those windows is fairly expensive. I appreciate the windows and they are lovely, but they are so low you hardly get a sense of being connected to the outside. You have limited Tight and will continue to have infiltration issues. Haley says we were at a conference a couple months ago, and they were talking about restoring windows. They said it really isn't more expensive in the long run. Burgess says my experience is that they are quite a bit more expensive. I have done it in Boulder. At the main street - facing facade, you sit on this porch and get a little headache. In Louisville, you are trying to get connection with the neighborhood. It seems that by lowering that solid wall, you have more interaction between neighbors. Even though this kind of wall is typical in Louisville, it is not necessarily typical of a bungalow. Public Comment: None. Closed Public Hearing and Discussion by Commission: Stewart says I am pleased with the changes that have been made, and where the project is right now. To me, there is substantial maintenance of the original street - facing fagade and the alterations of the porch do not affect it. It does not impact the integrity of the building negatively. I think they are appropriate changes. In light of most of the windows being in the original openings, I do not have a problem with that. I think it is the right way to treat it. I am not particularly pleased or see it necessary to add the gable on the south - facing fagade. Given that we are really not weighing this with our criteria in the code, we are not here to do a design review but how this applies to our code. Most of the roof is retained. Most of the exterior walls are retained. Both of the street - facing fagades are generally retained with the exception of the south and the gable. I am supportive of releasing the permit with these changes. Haley says I am thankful that at least the structure is going to be with us. It would have been good to process through more stuff, but this works. Trice says to Stewart that we are looking to its future eligibility to be landmarked. We are at the public hearing criteria. The criteria to be landmarked are strict conditions and cost of repair. Haley says if we release it, it will not potentially be eligible for landmarking in the future. Trice says one of your criteria is for the demolition. If you think the changes will limit its future eligibility to be landmarked, then you would the stay on it. Chuck Thomas says, in my opinion, the porch alterations are consistent with bungalows I am familiar with. In my experience, the statement that a higher wall is inconsistent does not bear out because I have seen both styles. The changes to the front porch do not concern me. I am pleased that the windows resemble the original windows and are in the same location; however, of a different size. Trice says there are some changes to the openings on the front. The door is in a different location.