Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2017 10 16

Home Browse Search

Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes September 18, 2017 Page 3of8 Trice stated that the applicant was not interested in maintaining the house. She added that staff and the applicant had discussed incentives that the City could provide for maintenance or incorporation. Applicant Tim Bierman, 905 Lincoln Avenue, Louisville, CO, stated that he and his wife moved from Chicago and never intended to keep the house when they bought the property. Problems with the structure include that the basement floods and the roof is falling in. They plan is to build a new house with a modern farmhouse design. He requested that the Commission release the 180 -day stay. They do not want to receive money from the Commission to restore the house. He introduced Peter Stewart, with whom he and his family have been working. Peter Stewart, 1132 Jefferson Avenue, Louisville, CO disclosed that he was a previous commissioner on the Historic Preservation Commission, but not while this application was under a review. He presented photographs of the condition of the house. He stated that the social significance is slim, as the occupants up until 1948 changed frequently and the 73 -year ownership issue is mostly beyond the period of significance assigned to the Old Town development, which ends in 1955. He showed a photograph from 1948 that showed composite siding on the house, stating that it was very unlikely that the house would have looked the same in 1907 as it did in 1948 as it went through significant remodeling since 1907. The roof, including the gable, indicates a 1950s -era remodeling. There are three types of windows on the house from eras after 1948. He stated that the interior and exterior conditions of the house were poor. The concrete curb around the house suggests that there was bad drainage, which often leads to rotting out of the rim board. He stated that they have not made estimates for the cost of remodeling but that they were probably substantial. Ulm asked about the basement flooding and the condition of the roof framing. Stewart responded that he had not investigated the condition of the roof. Chuck Thomas stated that there was no architectural significance of the building as it stands. It had social significance, but preserving it would be a questionable project. Ulm concurred, stating that much of the significance has degenerated since the 1948 photograph. He also questioned the economic feasibility of remodeling the structure. Cyndi Thomas stated that the lack of photos from before 1948 made it hard to tell the level of preservation, but that the 1948 photo does not look like older photos. She concluded that the architectural significance was insufficient and that the 73 -year family history was the only significance. Chuck Thomas stated that he usually liked for staff and applicants to try to maintain some of the structure. However, he was declined to agree with staff's recommendation. Fahey stated that the social significance is pretty recent and the Banyai/Madonna owners were not the original builders. She stated that the architectural and social significance did not warrant a stay. Haley agreed that there was significance for the period after 1948 but not for before.