My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2018 03 19
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
>
2005-2019 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
2018 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2018 03 19
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:08:20 PM
Creation date
4/27/2018 10:57:53 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
HPCPKT 2018 03 19
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.
/
345
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
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />December 14, 2017 <br />Page 5 of 10 <br />Dickinson stated that the current setback was probably only good with the current structure, as <br />a new structure would likely require a 20 -foot setback. <br />Krughoff stated that the house was not ahead of the 20 -foot setback and that porches were an <br />exception to that rule in the Old Town neighborhood. <br />Dickinson continued that he wanted the stay to be an active stay and not a punitive one. He <br />reminded the applicant that the stay did not have to be 180 days if they came up with a project <br />before then that incorporated preservation. <br />Cyndi Thomas agreed with staff that the house might be eligible for landmarking due to the <br />architectural and social significance. The house could also be a contributing structure to a <br />historic district. She added that the applicant's statements on cost and scope were helpful, as <br />well. She stated that after re -reading the Louisville Municipal Code, she reminded the <br />Commission that the stay was "up to" 180 days. With an applicant that wanted to work with the <br />Commission, the stay could be shorter. She suggested using timeframes shorter than 180 days <br />in some cases. <br />Trice added that the stay was from the date of application, which was January 8, 2018. <br />Chuck Thomas stated that he would like to make a motion to place a 180 -day stay. <br />Trice stated that if they were going to offer design assistance, they needed to select someone <br />from the Commission to do that. <br />Dickinson stated that he thought a 120 -day might be sufficient, which would place the stay until <br />May. The applicant had expressed an interest in working with the Commission. <br />Krughoff stated that the 180 -day stay was fine with him. <br />Cyndi Thomas asked if anyone else had any points before the motion was seconded. <br />Chuck Thomas made a motion to place a 180 -day stay with the design assistance offered. <br />Dickinson seconded. Roll call vote. Passed unanimously. <br />Cyndi Thomas asked for volunteers for design assistance. <br />Dickinson stated that he would be willing to offer design assistance. <br />Chuck Thomas also offered to volunteer. <br />Ulm asked staff if more than two people could volunteer from the Commission. <br />Trice stated that only two commissioners could meet at a time and that more would be a <br />challenge. <br />Chuck Thomas deferred to Ulm. <br />Ulm and Dickinson will provide design assistance to the applicant. <br />Cyndi Thomas thanked the applicant for his willingness to work with the Commission. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.