Laserfiche WebLink
DRAFT <br />The Ordinance should be 100% voluntary and should respect the private property <br /> <br /> <br />owner’s rights of not being a designated Historic Property. <br /> <br />Eric Hartronft, member of the Historic Commission and owner of the State Mercantile Building <br />on Main Street, stated that he supports the Ordinance. He discussed the difference between ‘old’ <br />and ‘historic’. On the local level it is possible for this to become a very emotional issue both <br />personally and professionally. We do not want to pit one neighbor against another neighbor. The <br />Commission needs to be proactive not reactive to Historic Preservation. Historic Preservation <br />can be beneficial to the property and to the community. Incentives are a huge issue for the <br />success of this Ordinance as well as a benefit to the property owners. <br /> <br />Commission Questions: (All commissioners addressed their comments / concerns / questions to <br />the Preservation Commission.) <br /> <br />Loo: <br />If the Ordinance is truly voluntary then why are other methods defined for the <br /> <br /> <br />Landmarking of property? <br />Clarification of the 25% requirement and would it trigger a public hearing process. <br /> <br /> <br />How does the Commission propose to protect the property owner? <br /> <br /> <br />How are the 2 members of Commission selected randomly for the review of <br /> <br /> <br />applications? <br />Muth clarified that by randomly selecting members would prevent using the same Commission <br />members all the time and could eliminate a conflict of interest during the review process. <br /> <br />McDermott: <br />A key element of funding is completely missing from the Ordinance. <br /> <br /> <br />The document needs to be edited to be more user friendly – simplify wording, more <br /> <br /> <br />reader friendly and understandable. <br />Koertje stated that Ordinance has been revised numerous times by the Commission prior to this <br />evening’ meeting but the Commission still welcomes the Planning Commission comments. <br /> <br />Kalish: <br />The passing of such an Ordinance would give the City of Louisville the classification <br /> <br /> <br />of ‘Certified Local Government’ (CLG) which then makes the City eligible for <br />funding. <br />The Historic Preservation Commission needs to identify those sections of the <br /> <br /> <br />Ordinance that are needed to enable the City to be identified as CLG. <br /> <br />Lipton: <br />Expressed that he has witnessed instances where Historic Preservation Ordinances <br /> <br /> <br />have been abused to deprive property owners their rights. <br />Questions regarding the ‘district’ designation whether it is for private/residential <br /> <br /> <br />property or commercial property. The vote should be one vote per lot no matter what <br />kind of property designation – residential, commercial, public. <br />5 <br /> <br /> <br />