My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 2015 05 26 SP
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
2015 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 2015 05 26 SP
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/19/2022 3:13:00 PM
Creation date
6/10/2015 10:06:24 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Original Hardcopy Storage
9C1
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 2015 05 26 SP
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
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
City Council <br />Meeting Minutes <br />May 26, 2015 <br />Page 10 of 12 <br />revisit the subject or decide on a different date, however, there is a risk of a gap if dates <br />are changed and in the best practices for historical preservation. <br />Mayor Pro Tem Dalton stated his understanding, wanted to ensure residents are not <br />overburdened by the process. Planner I Trice explained there are a variety of ways to <br />expedite the process for residents. <br />Planning and Building Safety Director Russ stated he finds the public hearing important <br />for information gathering. More information can come forward on the historical <br />significance which can be relevant to the owner or the HPC in making decisions. He <br />said there have been concerns that the process drags on after the hearing and can feel <br />punitive to the applicant. Does the timeframe need to be examined. <br />Council member Leh felt a date certain would help residents and should provide <br />guidance for the staff. He was concerned a rolling date created more confusion than it <br />resolves. Planning and Building Safety Director Russ suggested staff come back with a <br />pro /con list for a rolling date program and a fixed date program. <br />Council member Loo addressed the tract home developments in Louisville. She did not <br />want to commit residents to come before a historic commission to remodel their homes. <br />Mayor Pro Tem Dalton noted historic Old Town and Downtown Louisville is the result of <br />many years of change. He did not feel this would work the same in the suburban parts <br />of the City. <br />Planner I Trice explained there are misconceptions about historic preservation. It does <br />not require every property modification to come before the Historic Preservation <br />Commission. <br />Planning and Building Safety Director Russ stated the plan does not dictate styles or <br />involuntary process; it allows residents to make informed decisions by providing <br />information. Planner I Trice said at the workshops there were residents concerned <br />about neighbors being able to demolish homes without a public process and residents <br />interested in voluntarily landmarking their properties. <br />Mayor Pro Tem Dalton requested staff provide fixed dates and rationale for those dates <br />and rationale for the rolling year period. <br />Council member Loo stated there has not been a lot of involvement by the residents <br />living in tract homes with the historic preservation process. She stressed the importance <br />of educating the homeowners. <br />Council member Lipton supported Mayor Pro Tem Dalton's suggestion to ask for the <br />analysis. Mayor Muckle noted he felt Council had given direction to staff to lay out both <br />options; date certain and rolling. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.