My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2017 02 13
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
>
2005-2019 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
2017 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2017 02 13
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:08:20 PM
Creation date
2/21/2017 3:04:22 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
HPCPKT 2017 02 13
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
88
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Historic Preservation Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />January 9, 2017 <br />Page 3 of 14 <br />I am representing the owners of Main Street Markets. They have owned the property for the last <br />three years. They are Louisville residents and live on Lincoln Avenue. They could not be here <br />tonight but they will be on any and all land use applications if they move forward. I had the <br />opportunity to do Yoga Junction across the street which is a great example of a beautiful <br />building in Old Town. It has great scale and perfect Main Street characteristics. Joe's Market <br />represents that as well. I have lived in Louisville long enough to have shopped there. The <br />owners have the best intent I have known of landowners. Their heart is in keeping Main Street <br />and its scale very much the way it is. Joe's Market as we call it collectively is probably the more <br />charming building. The house has an interesting history. This is the first time I have received a <br />social history where I was surprised to learn what I found. Having gone into the basement which <br />is a cross between a basement and a crawl space, it explains everything. The foundation is <br />interesting. You can see the old building. I am surprised to see what I find given that the new <br />building seems so contemporary compared to what the old photos show. The new house is <br />fairly unrecognizable. I would be surprised if I found old framing in the existing building. I think <br />the intent is to look at these two buildings which are on one property and find ways to keep that <br />same character. There is a great opportunity for tho <br />as well. We are excited about what we will find. <br />think they have been maintained pretty well; ho <br />Commission Questions of Applicant: <br />Fahey says is it their intention to bring the house back original structure or to preserve the <br />1949 existing remodel. <br />Johnson says we have not had a lot of time to sit with this formation. My fear is we could <br />be recreating history starting from zero. I would love to say tha house is transformable but <br />think that it would be starting over. I think the original building is c ming. The scale and size of <br />the building would be exactly what they are trying to maintain. <br />Haley says you were not aware of the social history that the house was underneath <br />somewhere. Do you think there is original wood under the brick facade? <br />Johnson says I have no idea. It n some expjatory investigation. <br />uildings to have some synergy together <br />uildings have a lot to be uncovered. I <br />they are ';-rations of both buildings. <br />Public Comment in Favor: Non <br />Public Comment Against: None. <br />Closed Public Hearing and Discussion by Commission: <br />Koertje says I am shocked that the guts of 924 Main date to 1890s. I think both of these <br />structures meet the criteria for us to find there is probable cause to believe they would be <br />eligible for landmarking. They both have significant social history as pointed out in the Staff <br />report. Even the remodel of 924 Main is over 50 years old. The former Joe's Market retains <br />significant architectural integrity. I would be in favor of making the finding for probable cause for <br />both. I don't remember the exact language of the resolution that created this program for <br />probable cause to allow these reports to be done, but I know we have precedence for doing two <br />structures on one lot, and allowing both of them to be eligible for the maximum amount of <br />funding. I am in favor of that here, because they are clearly distinctly different structures. <br />Dickinson asks if these two structures going to be individually evaluated at each step moving <br />forward, or will they always be paired. If they only move forward with one, do we look at that <br />one? <br />Koertje says we make different decisions for each structure. We have done that with residential <br />areas where there is an older structure and a newer out -building. <br />Trice says an example is the Museum which has three landmarks on one site. They were all <br />landmarked individually. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.