Laserfiche WebLink
Historic Preservation Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />February 12, 2024 <br />Page 3 of 7 <br />Public Comment: <br />None were heard. <br />Commissioner Discussion: <br />Anderson spoke to why he referred the application to the full Commission from the <br />subcommittee. He said that the primary reason was due to it being a corner lot rather than <br />being mid -block, and that he did not have enough previous experience with similar lots to <br />grant approval. He explained the criteria for approval from the LMC, and said that he <br />would not have felt comfortable approving the application without bringing it before the <br />whole Commission. <br />Burg agreed that the historic structure being on a corner lot was an important <br />consideration, particularly given that it was more visible to the street. She liked that the <br />new structures were not attached to the historic one, and that the historic structure would <br />be well preserved. <br />Beauchamp asked to clarify whether the property was in the old town overlay district. <br />Dunlap said that it was. <br />Burg noted that Louisville did not have a "historic district", and that the overlay was <br />technically different. <br />Dunlap added that there were different zoning areas within the overlay district. <br />Beauchamp said that the site felt fairly dense, though he noted that the owner had use <br />by right. He said that the lot would be challenging to build on given the almost 5 foot slope <br />on it. He agreed that being on a corner lot would make it more visible. <br />Haley said that the design met the requirements for approval, but she felt that the massing <br />and size of the proposal was a challenge. She appreciated that the original building would <br />be left separate and intact. <br />Burg noted that they technically landmarked the whole property, even though the house <br />was the only historically significant part. She did not feel that the proposal would <br />negatively affect the house. <br />Anderson said that the language in the criteria was unusual, particularly given that it <br />referenced a "historic district" even though one did not technically exist in Louisville. He <br />felt that the proposed design was visually compatible with the rest of the overlay district, <br />and that the density would fit in. <br />Haley noted that other proposed secondary dwellings tended to be smaller, and tended <br />not to have two stories. <br />Anderson said that the design of the additional structures were a question of <br />interpretation of the alteration certificate process. <br />Whidden said that the density of the proposal gave her pause, but that the design was <br />ultimately within the scope of the requirements. <br />Dunlap again discussed his concerns about whether the garage could be considered an <br />additional dwelling, and what amenities it could have before it crossed that threshold. <br />Anderson explained that the code would define it as a guest house and not an additional <br />dwelling. <br />Dunlap said that it was a shame that the City hadn't defined what an ADU was. <br />Haley reiterated that the HPC could only evaluate the proposed design, not the proposed <br />use. <br />q <br />