Laserfiche WebLink
Historic Preservation Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />16 August 2021 <br />Page 6 of 8 <br />it were kept the same. Keller stated that he leaned toward letting them tear off the back part, <br />adding that if they landmarked it in the future it wouldn't help if the landmark fell down. He felt <br />this was a question of weighing a safety issue against landmarking, and being an engineer he <br />leaned toward safety. He added that it was a difficult decision because his emotional side said <br />keep the home. <br />Klemme wondered if the home had really gone through the entirety of the preservation <br />information process, noting that the Commission had been pretty active in allowing <br />extraordinary circumstances and money for preservation in general. <br />Haley stated that the Commission could focus on whether the home made the cut for <br />landmarking or not, which she thought the Commission was in favor of, so the question became <br />whether the home could be considered for landmarking if everything but the first 12 feet were <br />demolished. <br />Klemme stated that if everything had come packaged together then she thought they could have <br />considered the demolition and the landmarking. But if the demolition would preclude <br />landmarking then the Commission could place a stay and the applicant could potentially come <br />forward for an assessment grant in that period. Klemme stated that the process was backwards <br />as it is right now because the demolition was coming in first. She stated that if the applicant was <br />willing to save the first 12 feet then maybe they were willing to work with the Commission and <br />landmark it, or at least do an assessment. <br />Haley clarified that she was asking if 12 feet was sufficient to landmark the house. <br />Mazur stated that one of the reasons they were keeping that 12 feet was to keep the integrity of <br />the row of houses. He stated that he had not felt he wanted to landmark, all he wanted to do <br />was demolish part of the house. He would rather see preservation money go to someone who <br />was preserving the whole house instead of someone building a big addition. He was not looking <br />for money from preservation, he was looking for preservation to say what they were doing <br />makes sense since they were keeping the front of the house in the context of the neighboring <br />houses. They were taking off what was added after the original building and what was built <br />poorly. <br />Mundelein agreed and added that one of the reasons why Mr. Mazur had come to Mr. <br />Mundelein was to keep some of the historical look. The lot was fairly narrow so other views of <br />the house were obscured from the street and they were keeping the second -story aspect of the <br />addition lower to minimize the bulk of the house. He added that the trees and the adjacent <br />homes would make it difficult to see the sidelines of the house. <br />Klemme stated that what Mr. Mundelein was describing was exactly what the Commission <br />wanted to see and they did offer money for projects like that. The Commission acknowledged <br />that people had to live in these homes and they wanted to preserve the frontages while allowing <br />development in the back. She noted that the citizens of Louisville had voted for preservation <br />twice and she encouraged the applicants to talk to staff about preservation options. <br />Haley added that they could landmark without taking grants and she described the intent of the <br />program. <br />6 <br />