Laserfiche WebLink
Historic Preservation Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />16 August 2021 <br />Page 5 of 8 <br />Discussion ensued regarding the contents of the application packet among the applicant, staff, <br />and Chair Haley. <br />Haley asked if the applicant would have to get further approval to make changes to the front of <br />the house. <br />Bauer replied that changes to the first 12 feet would have to go through a review process since <br />the portion was older than 1955. <br />Haley asked for clarification that the design plans were not up for discussion today and Planner <br />Bauer and Director Zuccaro confirmed. Zuccaro stated that the demolition review criteria were <br />what was relevant tonight and that there would be no design review, adding that any additions <br />that would affect the front of the house like a wraparound element would be reviewed <br />separately. Discussed of the relevant criteria continued, in which it was agreed to focus on the <br />demolition review criteria. <br />Klemme stated that the Commission had set the precedent that social significance was tied to <br />the people who lived there, and that they did not discriminate against the status of the historical <br />person. She appreciated that the style of the house felt like a dime a dozen, but it still held <br />significance under review criteria 1.H. Klemme also acknowledged that the back of the house <br />had structural issues. <br />Burg agreed that age and significance was met, but the integrity of the home was very <br />questionable and looking around Louisville there was a push to save fronts of homes and <br />realistically the condition of the back of this structure would not be saved. She stated that <br />collectively this house added a lot to the neighborhood alongside other homes next to it and <br />though she wanted to see the front retained she was leaning toward releasing the demolition <br />permit. <br />Haley asked if demolition would preclude landmarking. <br />Zuccaro stated that it would be up to the Commission but with that much of the house <br />demolished it would not have architectural integrity and Bauer confirmed. <br />Klemme expressed confusion that demolition would preclude landmarking, since the <br />Commission had approved alteration certificates before with minimum facade preservation. <br />Zuccaro replied that those cases were preservation bonuses, which had different criteria than <br />landmarking. <br />Haley stated that by allowing this partial demo they would be giving up the opportunity to <br />landmark and asked how the Commission felt about that. She added that coal miners and their <br />small homes were an important part of social significance and the materials and sizes of the <br />homes showed that. She asked if the Commission was willing to give up landmark status for this <br />home. She stated that there were a lot of homes like this in Louisville but if they decided that <br />made them unimportant than they would lose that history. <br />Keller agreed that there should not be a class system for landmarking. He was concerned that <br />this was a structural safety issue. He added that 12 feet was a significant portion of the house, if <br />5 <br />