Laserfiche WebLink
Historic Preservation Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />February 24th, 2020 <br />Page 2 of 7 <br /> <br />1961 to the Williams family. They owned the family until 1997, and the property sold <br />again in 2020 to the current owner. Selvoski shared that the architecture and style of <br />this home is similar to other ranch structures that were built in Louisville during the post- <br />war years. The structure has seen very few changes over time and retains a high <br />degree of integrity. Property condition and the cost of necessary repairs are unknown. <br />The applicant applied for demolition on January 29, 2020 and a full 180 stay would <br />expire on July 27, 2020. Staff recommends a full 180 stay to allow time for the owners <br />to have a Historic Structure Assessment completed. <br /> <br />The applicant also applied for a probable cause determination. The criteria for probable <br />cause are very similar to the demolition review criteria. Selvoski reminded the <br />Commissioners that the property meets the age, architectural significance, and integrity <br />criteria. Based on that, staff recommended approval of an Historic Structure <br />Assessment grant in the amount of $4,000. <br /> <br />The applicant, Paul Rohr at 105 Roosevelt Avenue, stated that they are pursuing all <br />options and are excited about the property. <br /> <br />Klemme states that the structure meets the criteria for probable cause. <br /> <br />Parris agreed and noted that we do not see many structures from this time period <br />applying for probable cause or landmarking. <br /> <br />Chair Haley appreciates the story that goes along with the property, the change and <br />renewal that we see between the Old Town area and the neighborhoods to the south. <br /> <br />Dunlap appreciates that they applicant is exploring all options and is interested in <br />learning more about the property through the historic structure assessment. He would <br />consider shortening the stay to what is needed to complete the assessment instead of <br />the 27th of July. <br /> <br />Haley clarified that the length of the stay wasn’t changed due to the delay in holding the <br />hearing. <br /> <br />Staff confirmed that they stay was from the date of application. <br /> <br />Dunlap restated that he felt that length of the stay could be shortened. <br /> <br />Rohr responded saying that he felt his options would be increased if the 180 day stay <br />could be shortened. <br /> <br />Haley asked if the applicant had coordinated with a professional to complete the HSA. <br /> <br />Rohr stated that they’ve had several conversations but hasn’t settled on anyone to <br />compete the assessment at this point in time. <br /> <br />3