Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2021 12 20

Home Browse Search

Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes 15 November 2021 Page 3 of 6 Haley stated that there were different options for siding. Dunlap stated that the 1980s aluminum siding would have been in place at the time. Burg stated that two time periods could be relevant to this structure. The work was so extensive in the 1950s that it became a 1950s house. It still had the social and cultural history but the most recent historic era that it looked like was the 1950s, so they would be Iandmarking the 1950s house. Dunlap stated that people could tell that it met the criteria by walking by, but the multiple time periods made it more complex. Haley stated that she struggled with the fact that they had approved probable cause previously, but now it was different than what was first talked about. She thought it could still be landmarked because the rest of the integrity held and the siding was the main difference. If it had been the horizontal siding as the historic photos, the 1959 could have been very easily covering up the old siding, so it was a possibility that this house could still have the horizontal wood siding. The shake shingle is confusing because it gave a false sense of history. Burg stated that it met a lot the structural criteria, but the siding, though done well, didn't match the rest of the house. She wondered if all of the parts had to match historically or not. Haley stated that the window and door openings and structural pieces were more important than siding because siding could be changed. Klemme noted that the three resolutions were technical separate. She wondered if without any of the work would the Commission would have landmarked the structure, and she stated that she would have voted to landmark, but she would not have approved the Alteration Certificate for the siding. Haley noted that even at the subcommittee level, even if it wasn't landmarked, it would still be a request for an in -kind replacement. She asked if this was the siding that was proposed to the subcommittee. Dunlap stated that he had been on the subcommittee and he believed that the applicant had provided some samples and that there was precedent for shingled siding in old Louisville so it seemed consistent with the palate of materials that might have been used. He added that the intent had been to get a sturdy material that would not need to be replaced. He clarified that the shake siding was one of the options that was proposed. Haley stated that if the subcommittee had approved this and didn't take the opportunity to say no at that time then the Commission should approve it now, even though it was not an in -kind replacement. Klemme observed that there could have been shake added between the 1950s and the 1980s. She stated that there were different rules for what got approved for subcommittee versus for a landmark. 3 4