Laserfiche WebLink
City Council <br />Meeting Minutes <br />July 28, 2015 <br />Page 16 of 28 <br />• The Preservation Program could lose its reputation as a proactive, incentive - <br />based program at the county, state and national level. <br />• The Preservation Program would be out of sync with the state and national <br />preservation standard. <br />• Creates an assessment of eligibility that does not consider significance and <br />integrity. <br />• The preservation best practice is to use a "period of significance" for an <br />individual building or historic district, not a whole city. <br />• Properties on either side of the fixed date and otherwise equally eligible for <br />landmarking would be treated differently, leading to inequitable treatment. <br />• Excludes protection and recognition of iconic Louisville resources. <br />• Could be interpreted as inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan (historic <br />character, sense of place, unique environments). <br />Options: <br />1) Fixed date city -wide for both landmark eligibility and demolition review. <br />2) Fixed date city -wide for demolition review/ keep 50 years for voluntary landmark <br />eligibility. <br />3) Keep 50 years for landmark eligibility and demolition review. <br />4) Establish some other period of significance, more or less than 50 years, for <br />landmark eligibility and demolition review. <br />Historic Preservation Commission Recommendation: On June 15, 2015 the HPC <br />reviewed and discussed the pros /cons of establishing a fixed date and voted to keep the <br />existing 50 years for landmark eligibility and demolition review. Commissioners felt <br />there was no problem with the existing 50 years as a place to start and felt it is <br />important to retain the national standard. <br />Staff Recommendation: Based on the HPC recommendation and staff's review, staff <br />recommended the Council endorse Option 3, the existing progressive 50 year date for <br />the City of Louisville. Staff recognized the need to streamline and restructure the <br />demolition review process to address the concems and will propose changes in the <br />near future. <br />PUBLIC COMMENTS <br />Michael Koertje, 887 Welch Court, Louisville, CO, HPC member, addressed the <br />discussion for replacing the 50 -year rolling standards for landmarking eligibility and <br />demolition review and felt this is a solution in search of a problem. He stated the 50 <br />year standards are working well, both here and nationally. The argument for changing to <br />a fixed date has been Louisville's period of significance ended when the mines closed. <br />Some people believe anything built since their lifetime does not have any historic <br />significance. He did not believe the period of significance should be tied to the mines. <br />Louisville continued to grow and thrive after the mines closed. There are many <br />significant people living in Louisville since the 1950's. He suggested enjoying the <br />