Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2017 05 15

Home Browse Search

Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes April 17, 2017 Page 5 of 14 time requirement. If you look at the design guidelines for Downtown, it meets the historic guidelines much better than the old furniture store. I would not put too much importance on the Main Street view because I think there are a number of other options in terms of Iandmarking these buildings. Public Comment Against: None. Closed Public Hearing and Discussion by Commission: Fahey says with 844 Main, the existing structure is still there and looks original; it just had something added on to it. It also has a lot of social history. For 820 Main, because the original structures are still visible from the back, it does fit the guidelines for Downtown, and it fits in with the whole idea of Louisville's history of changing, moving, and altering buildings. To have those three structures enclosed, it didn't eliminate them, but just enclosed them. The first two absolutely look original and have enough architectural integrity and social history. I will vote for all three for probable cause. Dickinson says I was surprised when looking over the documents that 844 Main looked that way in 1930. I assumed it was a newer building but looking back, the pictures are striking. It has maintained its integrity. There is no question for me about 836 Main. Regarding 820 Main, it is a good question whether it should be landmarked or not. At this stage, there is no question that we should look into it and grant the $6000 for the assessment. Ulm says the comment about 820 Main is given on the nature of how Downtown functions. Using the depth of the block, you see the historical part of it. It is part of what goes on there. We should find out what that building is about, what happened, and where it's going. Fahey makes a motion to find probable cause to believe the structures at 820, 836, and 844 Main Street may be eligib dmarking under the criteria in section 15.36.050 of the Louisville Municipal Code b e• -rchitectttegrity and social history, seconded by Dickinson. Roll call vote. Name Lynda Haley Mike Koertje Debbi- Chuck Thomas Caleb Dickinson Michael Ulm Motion passed/failed: Motion passes 7-0. PUBLIC HEARING — 801 Grant Avenue Alteration Certificate, Grant (Request to continue to May 15, 2017) Referral — 931 Main Street PUD Amendment Staff Report of Facts and Issues: Trice presents from Power Point. • Existing structure constructed between 1898 and 1900 • Proposal is a connection between existing structure and new building • No changes to street facing facade • Opportunity for HPC to provide comments on the historic preservation aspect of the project.