Laserfiche WebLink
Historic Preservation Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />December 16t", 2019 <br />Page 7 of 13 <br />Parris noted that it would take a historic structure assessment to determine whether the <br />structure could be taken back to the original structure. <br />Selvoski stated that staff reviewed the structure based on the way it currently stands. <br />There could be changes in the future to take it back, but as it stands there were none. <br />Klemme asked about the second criterion about the structure to be relevant to a historic <br />district. <br />Selvoski replied that the City did not have historic districts, so it could not potentially <br />contribute to one. <br />Parris addressed the purpose of the stay, stating that placing the stay would give time to <br />look into an application for a historic structure assessment to see what's there. <br />Dunlap stated that it was unfortunate that the Commission could not do more. <br />Haley asked the commissioners if they felt comfortable making a stay. <br />Parris moved to place a 180-stay on 537 La Farge. Ulm seconded. <br />Haley explained that the stay would end on April 20th and that the applicant could apply <br />for a historic structure assessment in that time. She noted that the Commission had <br />done everything it could and she encouraged the neighbors to talk to whoever they <br />needed to. She hoped that it could turn into a creative project instead of something <br />divisive. <br />701 Pine Street: Demolition Request and Probable Cause Determination <br />Selvoski presented the social significance of the structure, which was built in 1900 and <br />which was part of Jefferson Place, the first residential subdivision in Louisville. She <br />described the social significance Selvoski explained that the footprint had remained the <br />same of the wood -frame residential structure and she pointed out a few of the changes. <br />Staff recommends a 90-day stay in order to allow additional time to explore alternative <br />options that would prevent loss of the building or the time needed to initiate designation <br />as a landmark. The applicant was also asking for a probable cause determination <br />tonight to learn more about the property. Staff found that it met the criteria for <br />landmarking. She explained that the changes over time would not necessarily keep it <br />from being landmarked. <br />Dunlap asked why there was a demolition request at the same time as the probable <br />cause determination. <br />Selvoski replied that the original intention was to demolish. <br />8 <br />