Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2018 03 19

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 14, 2017 Page 4 of 10 Andy Gitkind, 729 La Farge in Louisville, CO stated that he had lived next door since 2002 and had hoped the applicant would leave the house as it is, but he understood why the applicant wanted to change it. Gitkind stated that the setback to 721 La Farge could not be moved forward, as it was forward of his house, which was next door, and the corner lot at 900. Since construction teams had been out coring in the front of the 721 house, he wanted to state that he did not think the house could actually be moved forward on the lot. He added that there was plenty of room to build on the lot. His house at 729 and the 721 house shared shade from the same trees, so he hoped they could talk about how to preserve their mutual shade. Cyndi Thomas asked the Commission for comments. Ulm asked if the garage was sitting in the alley. Trice stated that she did not have a survey for the alley. Hanstein said the garage was about 8 inches from the alley. Krughoff stated that the garage was definitely not off the lot based on the improvement certification certificate. He added that they would have to create a PLAT of survey in order to move forward with the project anyway, and that would pin the corners of the lot. Dickinson stated that it looked close but that the garage was not in the alley based on the staff report documentation. He stated that the house was a great property visually due to the continuity from old pictures to today. However, it is a small house and he understood wanting a bigger house for comfort or for sale. The social and architectural significance and integrity were great. The current state of the property was also great. It was in perfect condition for restoration in addition to new construction. He informed the applicant that he had the opportunity to get more square footage and money from the City if he went the route of working with Historic Preservation. He stated that he was unsatisfied by the applicant's efforts so far in examining the preservation options. He added that it was an opportunity to maximize on the benefits from the City and the benefits of having a preservation household. Krughoff stated that he appreciated the effort that the City goes through to preserve homes. He had spent time considering the trade-offs, though he and his architects had not gone so far as to draw up different plans. He added that he did not understand the process of the 180 -day stay. Trice stated that in the past, the City had offered design assistance from the Commission during the stay period if the applicant wanted. Dickinson stated that the Commission's intention was to work with the applicant. He added that it sounded like the home was an investment and not a home in which the applicant planned to live, and that the applicant could maximize his utility by finding a balance that included preservation. This option could produce a better investment for everyone. He stated that the City worked with applicants and that the Commission did not expect applicants to do all this work on their own. Krughoff stated that he was willing to listen to their ideas, though he did not yet know how to save the facade or preserve other elements of the house. Chuck Thomas stated that there were benefits to the preservation route. First, altruism was a motivator to help Louisville maintain its history. Second, the applicant would get money from the City and be eligible for more square footage than generally allowed in non -preservation sites.