Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2017 01 09

Home Browse Search

Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes December 19, 2016 Page 3of6 Chuck Thomas says it depends on the applicant's desires. The only landmarking distinction is the cultural. Haley says the applicant will not know until the historic structure assessment (HSA) is completed. The context on the street is important. The Mudrock house next door is landmarked which is significant. Stewart says I agree with Staffs conclusion that the HSA will give the owners and the City more information. In terms of fabric, there is not a lot of it but the overall building shape and form is somewhat the same. I think there is probable cause. In our Downtown Design Guidelines, there is a classification of historic buildings with qualifications; the building does not exhibit all elements for landmarking, but with some simple changes such as removing the siding or fixing siding or installing period appropriate windows, it may have enough architectural significance. Chuck Thomas says the 1950 assessor photo is not particularly remarkable. The structure itself remains remarkably similar. I support probable cause based on cultural. Stewart says it does not fit high architectural achievements but it does have that context history. If there was a Historic District, perhaps it might be a contributing structure. Fasick says I am leaning towards not finding it eligible. Not only because of the historic Toss of the physical integrity, but I am not sure the cultural argument is strong enough. Quite often in historic preservation, if we have a property that is associated with a family important to history, we usually only landmark one of their houses, such as the main house. That has already been done in this case. Because of that, I am leaning toward denial. Trice says 613 Grant Avenue was the main house for the Mudrock family. The alternative argument is that this shows how Louisville grew. There were families who took over whole blocks or whole areas, particularly with Italian families. There is an argument either way. Koertje says Cleo Mudrock lived in the house and was a local significant person who has a park named after her. Here the architectural pillars are fairly weak but the social significance is somewhat strong because of its association with the Mudrock family. Some of the changes may have occurred more than 50 years ago. I would vote for probable cause. Fahey says the structural significance is not visible. It may be possible to bring some of it back. I think that the social significance is strong. I would vote for probable cause. Cyndi Thomas says I agree with the previous comments. It would be interesting to understand the condition of the property through the HSA and whether there is the ability or desire to rehab or bring it back. Fahey says it is an interesting point that Louisville has an extensive history of changing and moving and doing unusual things to houses. Trice says 50 years is for landmarking. There is no standard for restoration to a particular time period. Fahey makes a motion to find probable cause to believe the structure at 625 Grant Avenue may be eligible for la : ` arking under the criteria in Section 15.36.050 of the Louisville Municipal Code based on a -c: ral integrity and social history, seconded by Chuck Thomas. Roll call vote. Name Vote Lynda Haley Yes Debbie Fahey Yes Peter Stewart Yes Mike Koertje Yes Jessica Fasick No Cyndi Thomas Yes Chuck Thomas Yes Motion passed/failed: Pass Motion passes 6-1.