Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2018 02 12

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 14, 2017 Page 4 of 10 Typically the price would be fair -market value, but the sign had value to Louisville only so market value would not reflect the value of the sign. However she thought staff and the applicant had done a fair job in coming up with a price that reflected the cost of payment. She did not recommend requiring the applicant to make a new sign with the funds. Dickinson stated that while $34,000 was steep, it made sense to use funds toward preserving the sign. There are few icons more important to Louisville than the Blue Parrot sign, so its value was whatever the Commission agreed to pay for it. He concluded that he was in favor of both resolutions. Ulm stated he was fully support of Resolution 1. He had minor concerns over the pricing. Resolution 2 asked the City to pay for a new sign, which was not necessarily the job of the Commission. He added the numbers before the Commission did not reflect the total cost of the sign to the City, as there would be future costs including storage and remounting. He agreed with Commissioner Cyndi Thomas that the replacement sign did not need to be similar to the Blue Parrot sign. Chuck Thomas agreed that the cost was mind-boggling, but he believed it was a reflection of an in-kind replacement. Other than the high price, he did not have a problem with Resolution 2. He agreed with Commissioner Ulm that the new sign did not have to be an in-kind replacement. Overall he supported the resolutions. Haley stated that she supported Resolution 1. The value in Resolution 2 was also reflective of the value to the community of having an in-kind replacement, which was a value that could not be expressed in by the market as it was an emotional, subjective value. Fahey stated that the sign was an iconic part of Louisville. However, when the Commission grants money to other historic structures it tells applicants not to make their replacements look like the previous structure. She added that the applicants should be allowed to do something with the same size and shape. Trice stated that they were not paying for the new sign. They were using the value of a new sign as a way to estimate the cost of acquiring the sign. The Commission had no design review over the replacement sign. She reminded the Commission that they could attend the Planning Commission on February 8th as a member of the public, not as an HPC member. Dickinson stated that what was sad for everyone was that the Blue Parrot was gone. He stated that asking the new owner to brand their building in a particular way was odd. He stated that putting City money behind something of historic value was important to the Commission. Chuck Thomas stated that the proposal to keep the sign was consistent with displaying objects such as the Rex Theatre curtain in the Louisville Historic Museum. Trice stated that a group recommendation from HPC could go to City Council in February regarding input on the final design of the sign. Cyndi Thomas stated that the value piece was difficult. It felt like too much money when the City would give $21,000 for a whole house. However, the sign had major significance to the town making it harder to value. Trice stated that it was also the difference between a grant and an acquisition, so the City would own the sign through this procedure.