Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2020 03 16 CANCELLED

Home Browse Search

Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes February 24th, 2020 Page 3 of 14 Selvoski shared that the structure at 925 Jefferson was approximately 128 years old and was a classic example of vernacular architecture, with a great example of a hip - roofed box room house. It had been home to Virginia and Frank Hamilton. Virginia was a longtime school teacher and her husband worked as a coal miner, saloon operator, and Deputy County Clerk. Staff found that the structure had maintained much of its physical integrity. There was a 1957 addition to the rear that did not impact integrity. Staff finds that the structure met the landmarking criteria and suggested named it the Hamilton House. Selvoski also presented the alteration certificate request. She noted that the house did need work, which included raising the house and installing a new foundation and crawl space. The owners were also proposing a modern addition to the rear. She noted the differentiation between old and new construction in the elevations. Selvoski noted the ways in which staff did not believe the request met several criteria, due to the proposed enlargement of the window openings, the relocation of the front door, and the expansion of the front porch. Therefore, staff recommended denying the request for the alteration certificate. Selvoski presented the grant request for a matching grant in the amount of $117,937 and a finding of extraordinary circumstances. She reminded the Commission that without extraordinary circumstances, the maximum grant amount was $40,000. Selvoski noted that the proposed work was eligible for coverage. Selvoski stated that staff found that the foundation work qualified as extraordinary circumstances but the other work did not, and proposed that the grant be approved in the amount of $79,250. Dunlap asked how the porch would be changed. Selvoski replied that the applicant wanted to expand the porch by a foot and a half. Dunlap asked if the grant request was irrelevant if the alteration certificate was denied. Selvoski replied that it would be up to the applicant whether they wanted to continue with landmarking if their alteration certificate were denied. She noted that new construction would not be eligible for funding either way. Haley added that restoration work did not count as an alteration. Dunlap asked why 1021 Main, a structure that had previously been granted a finding of extraordinary circumstances, had been deemed extraordinary. Selvoski replied that 1021 Main was larger than the typical Louisville structure, which meant that some costs were higher than normal. Ulm asked if the porch extension would alter the plane of the roof. Selvoski replied that she believed it extended it further but would need to confirm with the applicant. 4