Laserfiche WebLink
Historic Preservation Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />August 18, 2008 <br />Page 4 of 8 <br />Whiteman asked if the owner would like to maintain it as a residence if it were given a <br />variance. <br />Grassi stated she would prefer to make it a commercial use that fronts to Main Street. <br />Currently the lot looks vacant from Main Street with the existing structure set so far back <br />on west side of the lot. <br />Lewis asked if there were any additional questions for the applicant. Seeing none, she <br />closed the public hearing. <br />Koertje noted that he was somewhat on the fence on this one. However, the zoning and <br />future use are irrelevant to the criteria. He noted that given the criteria on which a <br />decision is to be made, he feels a stay is warranted: <br />1. The building is likely eligible for local landmarking based on its architectural <br />integrity and possibly for its social history. <br />2. It would likely qualify as a contributing building for a historic district <br />3. Regarding the condition of the building, it is difficult to determine what the actual <br />condition of the building is as the applicant has not had any official evaluations <br />completed. <br />4. Regarding possible costs of restoration, it is also difficult to include this in the <br />decision as no estimates have been provided. <br />McMenamin stated that without specific estimates on restoration or the costs to bring the <br />site up to code, these issues can't be included in the decision. He added that the issues <br />related to bringing the site up to code are the same for all of Old Town. <br />Lewis concurred that the decision needs to be based on criteria 1 and 2 as there is no <br />information related to sections 3 and 4. <br />Whiteman noted that the zoning of the parcel does not allow keeping the structure for a <br />residence. While the zoning~~is not supposed to be considered in the decision, he stated <br />it is relevant to the future of the lot and if it doesn't allow for the residential use, then <br />putting a stay on the application would only hamstring the applicant, particularly as the <br />applicant plans to change the use to commercial. Whiteman stated that his question is <br />whether or not the applicant is willing to save the building and encapsulate it into a new <br />commercial structure. If she is not, then why put a stay on the process at all. <br />Koertje noted that Whiteman's comments were true, but he stated that the HPC's role is <br />to evaluate the site based on the criteria in the ordinance. He added that demolition of <br />any site in Louisville is based on the high values in the real estate market which is <br />pushing many people to demolish rather than consider preservation. <br />Muckle stated that the lack of historical information on the site makes the decision <br />difficult. But the association with the Perrella family may be enough of a social <br />significance to the make the site eligible for landmarking. She noted that the structural <br />issues on the site may be easily repaired, but there is not enough information to take this <br />into consideration. She also stated that the HPC must follow the criteria established in <br />the ordinance. <br />