Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2020 11 16

Home Browse Search

Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes 19 October 2020 Page 5 of 7 Haley asked for questions of staff. Dunlap asked if there were cost estimates that supported the request loan amount. Selvoski responded that the City did not require paper estimates, but in this case the estimates came from the Historic Structure Assessment. She added that the scale of the project had increased since that assessment. Dunlap stated that the size of the request seemed sensible given the amount of work being done, but he thought that the loan resolution as drafted required cost estimates. Selvoski replied that there was no matching requirement for loans and that new construction on the home would not be covered by the loan request. Dunlap asked his fellow commissioners if they thought there should be more oversight on the costs of rehabilitation projects. Selvoski noted that the application process for loans and grants were the same, so the applicant had provided project estimates, which were included in the staff report. Haley stated that she agreed with Commissioner Dunlap but that she thought that applicants were already required to give that information during the application process. Dunlap asked if Planner Selvoski thought the requested amount was reasonable. Selvoski pulled up the staff report and displayed the estimates for the work. Dunlap moved to approve Resolution 24, Series 2020. Parris seconded. Motion approved unanimously by roll call vote. Moxie Bread Company PUD and SRU: A referral request for a PUD and SRU to construct a single -story addition on the south side of the existing structure. • Applicant: Erik Hartronft, Hartronft and Associates • Staff: Lisa Ritchie Ritchie stated that the special review was related to additional outdoor dining on the Moxie property. She noted that the applicant had been apprised of the landmarking program, but for now only wanted to move forward with the addition. Ritchie described the plans for the second story with a rooftop deck, porch, and internal stairway. She asked the Commission to make a recommendation for either approval or denial to the Planning Commission and City Council based on the requirements in the Design Handbook for Downtown Louisville. Haley asked if the new porch would be the same distance out as the existing front porch. Erik Hartronft, applicant, described the layout of the new construction. He stated that the property owner's business was one of the icons of downtown Louisville and the current construction was cobbled together. The structure needed some back -of -house additions to allow the business to thrive and to allow the kitchen to have some breathing space for future repairs 5