Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2019 05 20

Home Browse Search

Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes April 29, 2019 Page 2 of 6 Ulm asked if it was possible to limit the option to demolish in the language for New Construction Grants. Zuccaro responded that the original ballot language and intent contemplated allowing new construction, even if it was brand-new construction and not in addition to a landmarked building. However, that did not mean that the Commission had to utilize that tool. In practice, the New Construction Grants had been given as an incentive to landmark. He suggested that it would be possible to limit demolition or to offer incentives for keeping a specific percentage of preservation in exchange for a New Construction Grant. Ulm stated that it did not seem to fit within the spirit of the program to fund new construction after a demolition. Dickinson responded that the New Construction Grant, as proposed, represented a tool that would encourage property owners to build smaller structures to help preserve the character of a neighborhood. He noted that people who were scraping probably would not look to the Fund for money. Thomas added that the Commission would have to approve a demolition in any event and could use the stay to encourage applicants to do something more responsible regarding preservation. He suggested connecting the "substantial" language to the heights and sizes of the structures on either side of the new construction. Dunlap stated that "substantial reduction" was nonspecific and difficult to interpret and suggested removing the New Construction Grant for properties not related to a landmark or a conservation easement. Thomas agreed that determining "substantial" would present a problem and he was willing to support limiting the New Construction Grants to landmarks or easements. He also did not have a problem with limiting incentive amounts as staff proposed. Dickinson asked for commissioner comment on the incentive amounts. Dunlap asked if part of the reauthorization was to reinvigorate the landmark process through new incentives. Dickinson replied that it was partly a response to the low number of landmark requests and also in response to bumping up against the grant limits in the application process. Dunlap stated that the size of projects going on in Louisville these days sometimes reached into the millions of dollars and, in that context, $5,000 did not seem like a lot. Thomas noted that the Commission often bumped up against the grant limits and so increasing those made sense. He thought $5,000 or $10,000 could work.