Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2018 11 29

Home Browse Search

Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes October 15, 2018 Page 3 of 8 Fahey asked about the existing bay window. Selvoski replied that she did not think there were plans to eliminate the bay window. Fahey asked if there was an iron fence in the 1948 assessors' photo. Selvoski confirmed that there was. Erica and Paul Bieringer, 1021 Main Street, stated that they bought the house over the summer with the intent of restoring the property and being a part of the downtown community. They have lived in Louisville for 12 years and Paul Bieringer owns a business three blocks from 1021 Main. Peter Stewart, 1132 Jefferson Avenue, is the architect of record. He pointed out that the building was historically significant according to National Register criteria and the 2000 Architectural Inventory statement of significance. He added that the materials needed to be restored, since many of them were original. Restoring tended to be more expensive than replacing. He showed the commercial buildings nearby that had gotten high grants in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. He summarized the significance of the application by reminding the Commission that a large amount of historic fabric remains in the structure, it is adjacent to the museum campus, and it was a gateway to downtown. Stewart presented the condition of the house, showing that the rear part is in much poorer shape than the historic portion in the front and was proportioned too small. The rear parts would be expensive to renovate and were not as significant as the front part of the house. On the design, he explained that they kept the connector piece as narrow as possible to keep the structure and perspective of the historic part of the house. Stewart responded to the staff comments on their grant amounts. He explained that "interior finishes" were associated with types of work that is covered by the grant, such as electrical and mechanical systems and foundation work. Stewart explained that the iron fence restoration, the window restorations instead of replacements, and the porch and door restorations were more expensive than replacing the materials. These were the main reasons they were asking for consideration as extraordinary circumstances. They brought their request down to 48% coverage from 67% in response to staff comments. Cyndi Thomas asked staff what would happen if the costs came in higher, if there was a mechanism to come back. Zuccaro stated that there is not a mechanism built in so they would have to come back with a new grant. He added that it usually has not been an issue since the amounts were capped at $20,000 since they do not give grants as a percentage of the actual