Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2018 01 22

Home Browse Search

Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes November 20, 2017 Page 4 of 6 Fahey stated that the house was typical of the postwar era and was part of the Louisville culture of families building near each other. She agreed that the structure was not exceptional, but the neighborhood was historic. Dickinson stated that the physical block is historic but not the street. Chuck Thomas stated that the historic nature of the area was due to its antecedent uses such as poultry farming. He added that the building in question was one of the older buildings on the block. Dickinson stated that if the house was the only house left it would be more important. He asked how losing the house would affect the feel of the block. Haley reminded the Commission that historical context of the neighborhood was not a criterion they could take into account. She asked the Commission to consider if they really thought these homes were historic. Chuck Thomas stated that he was usually inclined to grant a stay knowing that the applicant could do what they wanted after 180 days. Koertje listed the criteria for demolition review, stating that the structure met criterion one as it was in reasonable condition and the Commission did not have enough evidence to judge criterion two as they repair cost estimates. He stated that it could meet criterion three in two ways, one as contributing to a poultry farm district or a district of postwar homes built between 1945 and 1955. He concluded that the home could be eligible for landmarking even if there is little particularly interesting about the structure as it is indicative of the period and the Commission had landmarked a home from this era. Chuck Thomas agreed that it was indicative of the postwar era. Koertje stated that he did not think a stay would accomplish anything, but that might not be a criterion the Commission was supposed to consider. Haley asked what future residents might think of preserving postwar architecture. Chuck Thomas stated that the Commission had to make decisions about postwar structures as custodians of historic preservation. He agreed that it was unfortunate that the structure was setback far from the street, but that principle of preservation was important since there were not too many of these structures. Dickinson stated that if the structure were up for landmarking, he would likely approve that request. If it could be landmarked, it should likewise be granted a stay. He added that he would be being generous in either case, in granting a demolition permit or in granting a landmark request. He asked if personal taste was a factor the Commission could consider. Chuck Thomas stated that he was suspicious of his own aesthetic. Fahey made a motion to place the full 180 -day demolition stay on the structure based on the maintenance of appearance and structural integrity, social significance due to location, and the