Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2019 11 18

Home Browse Search

Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes October 21 st, 2019 Page 5 of 12 connector. It may not be possible to do that here, but staff always aimed for best practice. From the north and south angles, the differentiation was not as much as best practice would be. He added that the 10 feet was not within alteration certificate criteria, it was to get the zoning bonus. Zuccaro noted that you could restore old construction if you could not preserve it, which he thought was what Mr. Johnson was trying to do here. Staff was more concerned about the new addition. Dunlap noted that staff did not point to a concern about the massing and scale of the proposed addition. Selvoski replied that staff was more concerned by how far forward the addition was. In general staff found that the addition itself met the criteria. Haley asked for public comment. Seeing none, she opened commissioner comment. Dickinson stated that the proposal was indicative of the struggles of what the Commission was trying to do. He was sensitive to the purpose of the tax, which was to prevent demolitions and full scrapes of historic homes. He saw preservation and demolition as a spectrum and to save this structure in any form would have some value to the community. He also stated that there was a difference between a restoration, where materials and structures were not safe to preserve, and an addition. He thought that if the applicant could keep the structure as -is with the addition, they would, but it did not seem possible. Dickinson described the middle section of the structure as a restoration. He thought there would be a moment in the future where he would be embarrassed to have said yes to this alteration certificate, when the applicant ripped off the back and left only 10 feet, but there would also be a later time when he would be proud to have said yes since part of the historic home would still be present. He also noted that while the threat isn't explicit, the Commission needed to understand that they did not want to say no to something that was okay but not great and end up with a demolition. If the applicant had come in for a demolition review instead of an alteration certificate, the Commission would place a stay on construction and try to convince the applicant to do something like this proposal. Ulm agreed with Commissioner Dickinson's comments and observed that preservation in Louisville was going to live in a gray area. He appreciated the street presence of the home and the character of the neighborhood that Mr. Johnson had pointed out. He noted that there were projects they had seen that chose the demolition route without going through this process. Haley thought that there would be a lot more lost in the building without the restoration elements in the middle, which would preserve more of the original shape of the home. Dickinson replied that it was really important to distinguish the old and the new. In this case, there were still two parts of the house, the old and the new, so you're not adding onto the original home with similar material or a similar look. 6