Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2019 04 29

Home Browse Search

Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes March 18, 2019 Page 9 of 13 Dickinson replied that that would be a bad strategy on the part of the homeowner. For the City, having a change to the structure five or ten years down the road did not make the $15,000 a bad investment. Haley asked if staff had put specific parameters in the new construction grant. Selvoski read the ballot language on new construction: "Provide incentives for new buildings and developments within Historic Old Town Louisville to limit mass, scale, and number of stories to preserve setbacks, to preserve pedestrian sidewalks between buildings, to utilize materials typical of historic buildings, above mandatory requirements." Zuccaro noted that "above mandatory requirements" allowed maximum flexibility in the design review process. He noted that the historic context language in the Old Town Overlay were guidelines, not requirements. Haley, Dickinson, and Thomas agreed that the review process was a judgement process. Thomas suggested that subcommittees of architects and professionals of the Commission could make design review recommendations. Zuccaro reminded the Commission that it could amend the language in the future if necessary if it found the current language was not working. Haley summarized that the Commission recommended taking out the extraordinary circumstances language on the time limit section and taking out the landmarking language in the new construction grant. She asked for additional comment on the signing bonus question. Dickinson suggested that the first $10,000 could be changed to giving a $10,000 check as opposed to doing the work first and submitting for a reimbursement. Zuccaro suggested asking to provide proof when the work was done even if the City gave the money in advance of the work. Thomas stated that he was more comfortable with calling the money a bonus than asking people to fudge receipts. Dickinson replied that he wanted applicants to have the flexibility to spend the money on their house how they wanted, for example for interior work that the Fund did not cover. Dickinson moved to change the unmatched $10,000 grant to a $10,000 bonus. Dunlap asked if $5,000 would be more palatable than $10,000.