My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2015 07 20
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
>
2005-2019 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
2015 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2015 07 20
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:08:18 PM
Creation date
7/22/2015 3:02:37 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
HPCPKT 2015 07 20
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
257
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
Historic Preservation Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />June 15, 2015 <br />Page 9 of 14 <br />Koertje stated he does not want to bring in alteration certificates into this <br />discussion at all. <br />Haley stated the background to this was it would help homeowners to <br />understand what they were getting into - upfront education. <br />Koertje stated the alteration certificate is a whole different discussion — we <br />are primarily discussing demolition review. <br />Watson states the ability to landmark you property makes sense for <br />landmarking, because it gives the volunteer property owner the opportunity <br />to landmark. He believes demo review makes more sense to create a fixed <br />date. <br />Stewart asked if he was leaning more towards Option #3. <br />Watson answered affirmatively. <br />Stewart asked what happens 100 years from now. <br />Watson stated the master plan is only a 20 year plan. <br />Fahey stated that would leave out some potentially important structures. <br />Koertje asked what we are trying to find a solution to. He believes the <br />program is working fine. <br />Echohawk stated that is why Option #4 makes most sense because we <br />should follow the national standards. She stated we need to educate the <br />Council on the importance of a rolling time period. She stated historic <br />preservation does not plan, it honors the past. She then discussed some of <br />the issues she had while watching the last council meeting when this topic <br />was discussed. <br />Fahey stated establishing the first 50 years of Louisville's existence, 1938, <br />misses a lot of potentially significant structures. <br />Echohawk states the word "rolling" should not be used, only "50 year mark ". <br />Haley stated in reading through the cons, the statement of not following the <br />national and state regulations stands out the most to me. We should stay <br />consistent with the national and state regulations. She stated she likes <br />Option #4. <br />Fahey stated she agrees with Haley and votes for Option #4. <br />The commission agreed Option #4 is the best option and the program is <br />currently working well. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.