Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2019 08 19

Home Browse Search

Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes July 15, 2019 Page 2 of 6 Selvoski described a recent subcommittee demolition review that prompted a desire to have a review of the process by the full Commission. She explained that there are different definitions of a "demolition" under the Louisville Municipal Code: • "Fifty percent or more of the roof area as measured from directly above across a horizontal plane. • Fifty percent or more of the exterior walls of a building as measured contiguously around the building. • Any exterior wall facing a public street, but not an act or process which removes an exterior wall facing an alley. • A wall shall met the following minimum standards to be considered a retained exterior wall: o The wall shall retain studs or other structural elements, the exterior wall finish, and the fully framed and sheathed roof above that portion of the remaining building to which such wall is attached; o The wall shall not be covered or otherwise concealed by a wall that is proposed to be placed in front of the retained wall; and o Each part of the retained exterior walls shall be connected contiguously and without interruption to every other part of the retained exterior walls." Selvoski explained that some demolition requests could be approved administratively: • modifications to existing commercial signage put in place after 1955 which meet the applicable design standards; • the replacement of doors and windows when there is no change in the size of the existing opening and where there is documentation showing the existing doors and windows were replaced after 1955; and • the replacement of over 50% of the roof covering and/or sheathing, but excluding any structural members, where the existing roof covering and/or sheathing was replaced after 1955. If a request does not fall under administrative review, the issue goes to a randomly selected subcommittee of two commissioners and a staff member. If the subcommittee does not agree unanimously to approve the request, it goes before the Commission as soon as possible within 60 days. At that point, the Commission can choose to place a stay of up to 180 days or approve the request. Planning staff does not visit the structure, but the building staff does. Selvoski asked for the Commission to consider instances in which the language of the Code did not match the intention of the preservation program and if the Commission would like staff to conduct additional research to address those instances. Ulm stated that he was comfortable with the review process. He explained that in the recent demolition case, the application had contained a request to demolish part, but not all, of a structure, yet the property owner demolished the entire structure without further review. Selvoski further explained that the property owner had received a full demolition approval in 2017 or early 2018 that had expired before the most recent request. She noted that the owner had not received preservation funds for the demolished structure. Ulm replied that nothing could be done about that particular structure at this time, but he was concerned about how the Commission could follow up with approved cases. Haley asked if the property owner had been penalized.