Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2019 12 16

Home Browse Search

Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes November 18th, 2019 Page 5 of 8 Dunlap moved to approve with a 120-day stay. Klemme seconded. Motion passed unanimously by roll -call vote. 1117 Jefferson Avenue: Grant Request. (Resolution 10, Series 2019) Selvoski explained that this grant request was being considered under Resolution No. 20, Series 2009. It was a request for a $1,221.10 grant. The grant would cover the change from the current two -window opening on the gable back to the historic double - hung single window. The alteration certificate had already been approved by subcommittee. Selvoski shared the language from the 2009 resolution: "Funding for incentives for historic preservation or to preserve the character of historic Old Town Louisville shall be used for purposes consistent with the establishment of the HPF, and shall include, but not be limited to: Grants to fund the restoration or rehabilitation of existing resources." Selvoski noted that the replacement window fell under the category of restoration. She added that this grant was not matching, since it was coming in under the 2009 resolution, which did not require matching. Staff recommends approval of Resolution 10, Series 2019 for a restoration grant in the amount of $1,221.10. Staff requests direction from the Commission if they want to continue to allow applications to come under the resolutions they landmarked under. Haley asked what the max amount was for their grant under the old resolution. Selvoski replied that there was no maximum. Dunlap asked if there was a time limit. Selvoski replied that there was no time limit in the 2009 grants and there was language in 2010 about adding to, but not taking away from, the previous resolutions. Dickinson asked how many structures were landmarked prior to 2010. Ulm noted that the Commission would have to approve any grants, which allowed them to have control. Selvoski replied that there were 13 structures that were landmarked prior to 2010 or in 2010, several of which were City -owned buildings. Dickinson stated that the City was exposing itself to a huge amount of money for structures that were under resolutions without maximums. He observed that it did not seem fair to change the rules on something that has been landmarked in the past and that informed the applicant's decision to landmark. He noted Commissioner Ulm's point that the Commission had the right to use the preservation tools and did not have to say yes to everything. 6