My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2019 04 29
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
>
2005-2019 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
2019 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2019 04 29
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:08:21 PM
Creation date
5/7/2019 2:21:32 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
HPCPKT 2019 04 29
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
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
Historic Preservation Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />March 18, 2019 <br />Page 9 of 13 <br />Dickinson replied that that would be a bad strategy on the part of the homeowner. For <br />the City, having a change to the structure five or ten years down the road did not make <br />the $15,000 a bad investment. <br />Haley asked if staff had put specific parameters in the new construction grant. <br />Selvoski read the ballot language on new construction: "Provide incentives for new <br />buildings and developments within Historic Old Town Louisville to limit mass, scale, and <br />number of stories to preserve setbacks, to preserve pedestrian sidewalks between <br />buildings, to utilize materials typical of historic buildings, above mandatory <br />requirements." <br />Zuccaro noted that "above mandatory requirements" allowed maximum flexibility in the <br />design review process. He noted that the historic context language in the Old Town <br />Overlay were guidelines, not requirements. <br />Haley, Dickinson, and Thomas agreed that the review process was a judgement <br />process. Thomas suggested that subcommittees of architects and professionals of the <br />Commission could make design review recommendations. <br />Zuccaro reminded the Commission that it could amend the language in the future if <br />necessary if it found the current language was not working. <br />Haley summarized that the Commission recommended taking out the extraordinary <br />circumstances language on the time limit section and taking out the landmarking <br />language in the new construction grant. She asked for additional comment on the <br />signing bonus question. <br />Dickinson suggested that the first $10,000 could be changed to giving a $10,000 check <br />as opposed to doing the work first and submitting for a reimbursement. <br />Zuccaro suggested asking to provide proof when the work was done even if the City <br />gave the money in advance of the work. <br />Thomas stated that he was more comfortable with calling the money a bonus than <br />asking people to fudge receipts. Dickinson replied that he wanted applicants to have the <br />flexibility to spend the money on their house how they wanted, for example for interior <br />work that the Fund did not cover. <br />Dickinson moved to change the unmatched $10,000 grant to a $10,000 bonus. <br />Dunlap asked if $5,000 would be more palatable than $10,000. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.