Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2020 12 07

Home Browse Search

Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes 16 November 2020 Page 3 of 9 Klemme pointed out that the proposal was focusing on the 1908 period to the exclusion of the 1948 even though both were built over 50 years ago. Johnson replied that preservation projects could pick a specific historic period of significance and the 1908 one was the one that they were picking, since it told the Louisville story better and there had been so many changes to the 1948 addition. Ritchie added that staff had talked about the period of significance and staff was comfortable with where the proposal landed. Johnson added that he and staff spent quite a bit of time talking about different design options for the project, including options that incorporated the 1997 addition. Those iterations felt like there were multiple personalities going on with the structure. Klemme stated that if the addition was a new addition rather than a rehabilitated addition, the windows in the front and the siding on the side should be better differentiated. Johnson replied that the original windows would probably be taller and he was not proposing that they would drop the new windows to match the original ones. He stated that it was important to consider compatibility with the original design in addition to thinking about differentiation. Ritchie stated that staff had considered it from the perspective of best practices for rehabilitation, as opposed to thinking of it as an addition. Haley stated that the bay window and the door could not be reverted back to the original because it would change the interior too much, as they had learned from the summer Historic Structure Assessment. She thought that the siding was fine because it reflected the time period when the original siding had been added. Klemme asked about the fireplace and the chimney. Johnson replied that the chimney that was gone was the one that was in a different location on the house and the one on the rendering was currently on the structure. Haley asked for comments from the public. Seeing none, she asked for commissioner discussion. Dunlap stated that there had been so many changes to the structure that it would not be very satisfying from the Department of Interior guidelines. That said, he stated that he liked the design and that he thought it was an improvement and more in keeping with the neighborhood. Haley stated that the project would be re -exposing some of the windows, meaning that the north side was brought back through the project. Dunlap clarified that he meant the actual material of the structure would not be the same. He added that he did not think that the south elevation siding should have a break to have the original siding and the proposed siding. 3 4