Disclaimer: Only “roll call” votes are recorded.

Disclaimer: Only the attendance of committee members is recorded for committee meetings.

File #: R-186-17    Version: 1 Name:
Type: Resolution Status: Passed
File created: 11/21/2017 In control: Metro Council
On agenda: 11/30/2017 Final action: 11/30/2017
Title: A RESOLUTION OVERTURNING THE DECISION OF THE LANDMARKS COMMISSION DESIGNATING THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 609 BLANKENBAKER LANE IN LOUISVILLE METRO AS A LOCAL LANDMARK (CASE NO. 17DESGNATION1000).
Sponsors: Scott Reed (R-16), Glen Stuckel (R-17), Robin Engel (R-22), Cindi Fowler (D-14), Barbara Sexton Smith (D-4)
Attachments: 1. R-186-17 V.1 113017 Overturning Landmarks Designation 609 Blankenbaker Ln.pdf, 2. RES 123 2017.pdf
RESOLUTION NO. ____, SERIES 2017
TITLE
A RESOLUTION OVERTURNING THE DECISION OF THE LANDMARKS COMMISSION DESIGNATING THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 609 BLANKENBAKER LANE IN LOUISVILLE METRO AS A LOCAL LANDMARK (CASE NO. 17DESGNATION1000).
BODY
SPONSORED BY: COUNCIL MEMBERS REED, STUCKEL, ENGEL, FOWLER AND SEXTON SMITH

WHEREAS, the Legislative Council of the Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government (the "Council") has considered the evidence presented at the public hearings held by the Landmarks Commission on April 20, 2017 and July 20, 2017 and the evidence presented at the public hearing held by the Council's Planning/Zoning, Land Design and Development Committee on November 14, 2017, as well as the visitation of the subject property by more than nine members of the Metro Council; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to LMCO ? 32.260(G), the Council disagrees with the decision of the Landmarks Commission dated July 20, 2017 designating the home located on 609 Blankenbaker Lane as a local landmark and makes the following findings of fact:
(1) With respect to Guidelines 32.260(E)(1)(a),(b), (e) and (i), the hearing before the Committee revealed the subjective nature of the criteria and the failure to consider the number of buildings in existence that exhibit this type of building and architecture.
(2) With respect to Guideline 32.260(E)(1)(f), the petitioner fails to take into account the existence of other more symbolic buildings of the architecture noted, as well as the significant damage to the original home that was sustained in a fire that led to the complete reconstruction of the home in the early 1950's. The application also gives merit to the claim that the reconstruction of the home is credited to Stratton Hammon, which is not documented within the construction documents of the home, and was part of a settled lawsuit between the owner and Mr. Hammon.
(3) With respect to Guideline 32.260(E)(1)(g), the use of nontraditional mortar techniqu...

Click here for full text