Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2017 02 13

Home Browse Search

Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes January 9, 2017 Page 6 of 14 Maes says I think landmarking the structure would not eliminate the core problems. We need to get the house to a livable situation. This is a home that was good in the 1950s and 1960s. We are in 2017 and I will be 50 years old this year. My mother is at retirement age. Najera says the City has been out maybe eight times because they put a new water meter in. I have the water turned off because it could freeze. The City knows the house which is on a dirt foundation. I can't keep up with the repairs. I don't want to see someone get hurt. Maes says any historical significance of the house is outweighed by issues. Dickinson asks when the house was built? Trice says original construction was 1903 to 1908. Maes says my grandfather bought the second miner shack from the property owner at 1428 Cannon Street. Haley says the HPC wants to make sure there is a balance in the money to be used to get a house sustainable and livable. There comes a point where it is not feasible. Your house looks very similar to the original pictures we have. We call that architectural integrity. Besides the windows changing and the exterior, it is very similar. It is a big deal in Louisville that your house has maintained its overall structure and looks. When future generations come and see your house, they will say "that is clearly great -grandma's house". That is one of our criteria. The second piece is that your house is located in Little Italy, and that area has changed. Future generations will not be able to see that piece of our history. That is why we see your house as potentially important to our historic goals. When you do landmark your house, we help you pay for those expenses because we know old houses have issues. We'd want to partner with you to make it livable. Just because you landmark your house, it doesn't mean you can't add to it. We can approve an addition. Demolition is expensive and bringing in a new house is expensive. You can get a grant to get the structural, electrical, and everything examined and then make an informed decision. You and we can then determine if this is doable or not. When we talk about the 180 day stay, it is not a punitive action. We want to investigate this more and make sure we did all of our research to help you understand what we are here for, and to make sure you are happy with your decision. Najera says demolition with services was $38,000. The new house they want to put on is $147,000. With the foundation work of $28,000, it is just under $200,000. Maes says I understand there is historical significance to the property. I agree there have been many homes in Little Italy that have been extensively remodeled or demo -ed and rebuilt. Chuck Thomas says our goals are not dissimilar. You are looking for a safe habitable residence that meets today's expectation of living accommodations. We have seen examples of older structures such as this incorporated into larger structures so that the structure was salvageable, reclaimable, and additional space provided to meet modern living standards. Our issue at this juncture is knowing whether or not demolition is the safest and best option for creating a livable situation. Is preservation and incorporation into an ancillary structure feasible? We do not have the answer and you have not provided us with the answer. Which of those two options are optimal and affordable? Maes says we have not explored that option. Public Comment in Favor: None. Public Comment Against: None. Closed Public Hearing and Discussion by Commission: Haley says we have some exploration we can do with this home. I think exploring probable cause may be beneficial. Koertje says we need to look at our criteria first under the Code. This is one of the more difficult ones. This is not a case we see often. Is this structure potentially eligible as a landmark? I think