Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2018 02 12

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 14, 2017 Page 9 of 10 544 LaFarge Avenue. On January 9, 2018, Planning Staff and two HPC members reviewed a request to replace the siding at 544 LaFarge Avenue. After deliberation, the HPC subcommittee decided to release the permit because of the existing siding was not original. UPDATES FROM COMMISSION MEMBERS None. ITEMS TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR THE REGULAR MEETING on February 12th, 2018 Haley asked for additional comments from the Commission and any additional items from staff. Interpretive signs Trice stated that she would be bringing the proofs for interpretive signs and the referral for the "Corner" sign. Dickinson stated that he wanted to have a discussion about how preservation goals were made, especially in light of the November 2017 vote that secured funding for the next 11 years. He asked how the new timeframe and financial allocation changed the Commission's goals. Trice stated that the Commission could not pre -judge projects, but staff and the Commission could reevaluate the criteria commissioners use to judge projects when they come before the Commission. The criteria are listed in Louisville Code 15.36. She reminded the Commission that they would be reviewing demolition and allocation criteria. She suggested that reviewing criteria for landmarking was a way to have a discussion about goals without bringing up specific properties. She added that the Historic Contexts have recommendations for landmark outreach and recommendations for gaps in Louisville preservation. Dickinson asked how to establish accountability and check -ins for projects that the Commission landmarks. In his experience working on a landmarked house, he did not feel there was much follow-up or accountability once the landmark had been granted. He gave the example of the stone building on Pine, which seemed to have more demolition than he remembered approving. He asked if the Commission had a role in enforcement. Trice stated that 701 Garfield — the stone building — had a problem with the structure of the roof and required an additional alteration certificate that was approved by a subcommittee since it was a substantial change that occurred during the building process. It did not need to come back to Commission because the subcommittee did not think it needed to be re -reviewed. Trice added that she often goes on inspections. She updates the Commission on changes such as demolition and alteration certificates. She added that staff was pursuing ways to keep builders and owners accountable, including at the Building Permit stage. Chuck Thomas stated that the Commission had looked at the demolition updates, even if they did not make a motion on them. Haley stated that the Commission used to have a formal step in proceedings where the Chair would ask if anyone had any questions or comments on demolition reviews and they could resuscitate that process if necessary. Chuck Thomas stated that he did not think the Commission needed to address each demolition review individually. He supported the old process of asking if anyone on the Commission had any questions when demolition reviews appeared on the agenda.