Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2020 01 13

Home Browse Search

Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes December 16t", 2019 Page 2 of 13 that these changes give the structure a false sense of history. Based on these criteria, staff recommends that the Commission release the permit. Staff believes that the applicant is aware of all opportunities under the program and that while the structure could meet social significance, the architectural integrity has been compromised over time. Haley asked if the applicant was saving the front of the house for the easement and how that worked if the structure was not historic. Selvoski replied that the structure was historic underneath and still had the 1939 date attached to it. It qualified for the preservation bonus because the structure was only refaced. She added that the front porch was not included in the 25% requirement. Dunlap asked when the changes were made. Selvoski replied that they were made around 1989. The applicant, Roy Krughoff, 2417 Willow Creek Drive in Boulder, explained that they were trying to save 25% of the house and the porch. He believed this would help save the streetscape. Ulm asked if the applicant had any design plans. Krughoff replied that he had them, but he had not brought them. Dunlap asked him to describe the plans. Krughoff replied that the development would be a duplex. The left unit would be behind the existing house and to the right would be another unit in the same architectural style. The unit on the left would have the same front porch and the unit on the right would have a small roof over the front door. Haley asked how many feet back were covered by the 25%. Selvoski replied that it was 7'7". Chris and Kelly Wheeler, 525 La Farge, stated their opposition. The bungalow style was important to Louisville, and the time period when the structure was built was a time of growth and iconic American architecture. They described the social history of the home, stating that the remodeling into a bungalow honored the heritage of Louisville. They identified the requested demolition as part of a larger trend of demolition in Louisville, which permanently altered the historic integrity. They described other scrapes in the neighborhood and the attendant construction issues. They acknowledged that sometimes construction was necessary, but they did not think that the structure was dilapidated and that it should be preserved. They were also concerned by the plan to build a duplex in their neighborhood, since they believed that the stucco bungalow 3