Laserfiche WebLink
Historic Preservation Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />19 April 2021 <br />Page 3 of 11 <br />Klemme asked what would be involved if someone wanted to buy an apartment and sell in the <br />commercial space below. <br />Hartronft replied that he felt that commercial was already approved downtown so they didn't <br />have to do anything for that. <br />Zuccaro added that if the SRU were approved and something happened to convert or end the <br />residential space then it would no longer be allowed to be a residential use by the Code. He <br />thought it was unlikely that you would get an SRU approved for residential use and then it <br />wouldn't get used as residential. He noted that there was a live/work concept in the Code and it <br />was likely that if you wanted to have a commercial storefront you could do that and you wouldn't <br />lose the residential use. <br />Haley asked about the setbacks. <br />Hartronft replied that the first floor and the second- and third -story decks were at the property <br />line and the third -floor building was set back. The wall line of the second and third floors was set <br />back seven feet. <br />Burg asked whether the horizontal siding change on the first floor in the rendering was the <br />siding shift. <br />Hartronft confirmed. <br />Klemme asked if the Fischer building was being added to between the existing and new building <br />and asked about the connecting material. <br />Hartronft replied that the material would blend in with the Fischer building stucco and that it was <br />not composite. He added that there was an alley walkway between the buildings where you <br />could walk back to the parking area. Some of the residents in the Fischer building would enter <br />through the alley. He noted that the decks were actually front porches for the residences. <br />Otherwise, the Fischer building wasn't really changing. <br />Haley asked for public comment. Seeing none, she opened discussion. <br />Dunlap, Chair Haley, and Director Zuccaro discussed the role of the Commission in the review <br />process and how to make a motion on the item. <br />Dunlap stated that it was a thoughtful design overall and asked about the parking requirements. <br />Zuccaro replied that downtown there was an assumption that there would be more multi -modal <br />and shared -use transportation and that parking got reviewed on the SRU and the PUD, which <br />staff was addressing with the applicant. <br />Haley shared her thoughts on the proposed height, noting that the application could have <br />proposed a higher building, but also that two-story commercial buildings were the most <br />represented in downtown Louisville and therefore were the standard context. She thought the <br />proposed height was fine but questioned whether a three-story residential building was <br />3 <br />