Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2018 01 22

Home Browse Search

Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes November 20, 2017 Page 3 of 6 Chuck Thomas reiterated that the question for the Commission was whether the building was worth saving. Ritchie entered two emails into the record from the public, one expressing support and one expressing concerns. Fahey asked Johnson if it was possible to build a larger structure with greater lot coverage if they preserved the historic front portion. Johnson stated that it might work. But there was room in front of the historic part of the building that the applicants would like to use. Johnson added that the new building could maintain the historic cadence of the street. Keith Helart 1200 Lincoln Avenue, Louisville stated that as a next-door neighbor he was concerned by what would replace the house. He would like a site plan before the Commission granted a demolition permit. Haley responded that she understood his concern, but that a demolition permit did not require the applicant to show what would be going in ahead of time. Dickinson stated that the Commission was not allowed to consider well done or poorly done applications. They could only consider the historic nature of the home. Haley recommended that Helart talk to his neighbor. Jackson Braun 1435 Monroe Place, Louisville asked if the Commission would ever consider possible dangers like chemical pollution in considering demolition permits. Haley responded that the Commission considered the impact of demolition in releasing toxins, especially in the cost for mitigating toxins using the preservation grant. Cyndi Thomas stated that her home at 1245 Grant was a chicken farm and was landmarked as well. The poultry part of the consideration for the demolition review was already covered by her property. Dickinson stated that the 50 -year distinction to distinguish what makes something historic was important to consider. The point is not to save every building that is 50 years old or older. The structure has to be significant. He asked if it was enough to save a home just because it has maintained structural integrity. He added that he had not heard a compelling argument for the social significance of the building. Chuck Thomas responded that preservation movement in the US started with turn -of -the - century construction and over time postwar constructions were considered. He stated that he was not overly impressed with the architecture of the building. He added that since the house was so far back on the lot, it may not be feasible to preserve the building. Haley responded that the Commission could not use lot location to judge as it was not part of the criteria.