Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2020 02 24

Home Browse Search

Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes January 13th, 2020 Page 7 of 9 make determinations. He noted that Louisville was a friendlier environment to have conversations about preservation than other jurisdictions. Johnson thought that signage would be the biggest advertising for the program and that there could be some overlap with the historic board, as well. He suggested working with the LES tour to pick a historic home for the tour. Johnson asked the Commission to keep building owners on the radar for the program. He also discussed the period of significance, observing that the ordinance set the period at 1955, but the buildings that were within the 50-year requirement would be coming under consideration soon. He thought that the Old Town Overlay was simple, which made it difficult and was the beauty of it at the same time. He encouraged a stakeholders-only input meeting and multiple public meetings. The stakeholder meetings, however they worked in the Open Government format, would be critical. The problem with just general public meetings was that there were only emotional and not technical. Johnson thought that the program would disintegrate if it became mandatory. He observed that the strength of the program was that it was voluntary and reward-based. He urged the Commission to keep the program collaborative. He noted that it had some notoriety but he thought it should have national recognition and awards, he was proud to be a part of it and part of a community that had this program. Klemme asked Mr. Johnson to elaborate on why he thought the program would disintegrate if it became mandatory. Johnson replied that a mandatory program would devalue properties and would be a tough sell as Louisville was a very property-rights driven place. The goodwill that this program promoted between the Commission, City Hall, and homeowners would look fundamentally different. He observed that the general public did not interact with City Code and that there were misconceptions about government that were antagonistic. The program had succeeded because it was so positive, especially with a grant program that supported turning basic homes back to their original beauty. Ulm agreed with Mr. Johnson’s comments, but he was starting to see people gaming the system. He wanted to keep the positive direction they had now. He saw developers coming in, turning things to their advantage in ways that did not match the spirit of what the program was trying to do. Johnson replied that there was always a benefit to having a dialogue with the applicant. He noted that the Old Town Overlay had three levels for how property owners could increase your FAR and that landmarking had the greatest benefits for the homeowner. He noted that there were “loopholes” in the preservation system. Ulm stated that the Commission only had control when a structure was landmarked. He thought that tying the Overlay and preservation closer together would be a good idea and he thought Council should take that up as an item. Johnson replied that he thought it was fair for a homeowner to weigh whether they wanted to do something that would exist in perpetuity. He suggested evaluating the