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 10 of 13 <br />Dickinson replied that the bonus was not about compensating for the time spent in <br />landmarking, it was about providing enough of an incentive. He thought that offering <br />$10,000 to landmark was the cheapest way to incentivize landmarking. <br />Zuccaro asked if the bonus language would be the same for commercial and residential <br />properties. <br />Dickinson thought the reasoning was the same so the language should be the same. <br />Ulm thought $75,000 was a lot of money to give just for landmarking, even if that's what <br />the City wanted applicants to do. He was worried that a citizen who didn't care about <br />landmarking might wonder why an applicant was getting that much money to preserve <br />something like a clock. <br />Dickinson replied that there were not a lot of commercial buildings that could use this <br />money and the citizens of Louisville had asked the City to stop demolitions. <br />Haley added that there were few landmarked commercial buildings and there was a <br />push to landmark them. <br />Dickinson moved to change the $10,000 unmatched grant to a signing bonus for <br />residential and the $75,000 for commercial to a signing bonus as well; remove the <br />wording of extraordinary circumstances and change to "showing of good cause" for <br />timeline extensions; and to remove the landmark language from the new construction <br />rants for commercial and residential structures. Thomas seconded. Voice vote. 6 yays. <br />Commissioner Klemme abstained. Motion passed. <br />Recess at 8:33 PM. <br />Reconvened at 8:42 PM. <br />Public Outreach <br />Selvoski presented several future outreach ideas from staff, including a meeting with the <br />Downtown Business Association, direct mailings to residents, continuing the coaster <br />program, hosting a public speaker series, increased social media presence, and <br />reaching out to realtors. She invited other suggestions from the Commission. She also <br />requested direction from the commissioners about how they wanted to implement the <br />outreach programs. <br />Parris recommended having a discussion on what the Commission wanted to do and <br />then deciding how the commissioners wanted to organize the process. She noted that a <br />two -person subcommittee for all outreach work, as they had done last year, was too <br />much work for that small group. <br />Haley suggested having a subcommittee for each outreach project. Dickinson agreed. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.