Laserfiche WebLink
mostly new construction; the property <br />is not landmarked and grant funds <br />are not requested. <br />* In considering the condition of the building and the projected cost of restoration or <br />repair as set forth in subsections H.3 and H.4, above, the commission may not consider <br />deterioration caused by unreasonable neglect. <br />PUBLIC COMMENTS: <br />There has been one public comment received for this application in support of the <br />proposed design (Attachment No. 5). <br />RECOMMENDATION: <br />LMC 15.36.200 notes that the purpose of demolition review is to: <br />1. Prevent loss of buildings that may have historic and architectural significance; <br />and <br />2. Provide the time necessary to initiate designation as an individual landmark or to <br />consider alternatives for the building. <br />Based on evaluation of the criteria in LMC Sec. 15.36.200, the HPC may release the <br />permit, or place a stay on the application for up to 180 days from the date of application, <br />which was July 29, 2025. A full 180-day stay would expire on January 25, 2026. <br />Staff recommend the Historic Preservation Commission approve the demolition <br />request. <br />Staff find that the integrity of the historic portion of the building has been largely <br />maintained since its construction in 1948 and could be a potential candidate for <br />landmarking. However, building additions that are not historically significant in age along <br />with a lack of unique architectural features or architectural style specific to Louisville do <br />not merit a stay of demolition. Further, the eastern addition does not affect the front <br />fagade of historic home. <br />Staff believe releasing the demolition request is appropriate because the applicant has <br />been informed about the preservation options and staff have documented the exterior of <br />the structure. As such, the applicant does not need additional time to consider the <br />possibilities for landmarking and staff does not need additional time to document or <br />salvage materials on the property. In addition, staff do not find that the social and <br />architectural significance alone merit a stay of demolition when weighed against these <br />other considerations. <br />ATTACHMENTS AND LINKS: <br />1. Application Materials <br />2. Development Plan <br />3. Historic Structure Assessment (HSA) <br />4. Social History Report <br />5. Public Comment <br />8 <br />