My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2014 03 17
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
>
2005-2019 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
2014 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2014 03 17
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:08:17 PM
Creation date
3/20/2014 8:20:16 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
HPCPKT 2014 03 17
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
139
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Staff anticipates three rounds of public meetings during the creation of the plan. <br />The first round would be to define the purpose and need for the Plan, and the <br />general goals for the preservation program. This would be followed by the <br />documentation of the City’s historic resources and current program. The second <br />round of public meetings would identify goals for the specific elements of the <br />Plan. The next step would be the creation of policies and implementation <br />strategies to achieve the defined goals.The final round of public meetings would <br />be for refinement and adoption of the plan. <br />The 2014 budget includes $34,000 from the Historic Preservation Fund for the <br />Preservation Master Plan. The original proposal was for City staff to lead the <br />development of the plan, with input and guidance from an experienced <br />preservation consultant. Staff’s estimated cost for limited consultant help is <br />$18,200. Another option would be to hire a consultant team to complete the <br />project, which would likely require the full $34,000 if not more. It is staff’s opinion <br />that, given the unique and complex nature of Louisville’s preservation program, <br />the staff-led option is preferable. An outside consultant would provide an <br />objective and fresh perspective on the program, but staff believes this can be <br />achieved with the limited consultant input described above. <br />Staff is seeking direction on how to proceed with the Preservation Master Plan. <br />The HPC should decide if it would like to continue with the staff-led process or <br />explore a consultant led approach. Staff also requests direction on the proposed <br />outline, including whether there are any items that should be added or removed <br />at this point. The outline will continue to be refined throughout the public <br />process, so staff recommends including any items the HPC may want and <br />leaving decisions on removing items for later in the process. Staff also seeks <br />direction on the proposed work program, including the number and order of <br />meetings. Staff anticipates the project getting underway in mid to late summer, <br />with completion in approximately six months. <br />Attachments: <br />1. Draft outline <br />2. Draft scope of work <br />3. Draft budget <br />4. 1998 Preservation Master Plan <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.