Historic Preservation Commission Minutes 2020 12 21

Home Browse Search

Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes 21 December 2020 Page 2 of 14 • Create a grant option for residential conservation easements. • Increase residential grant amounts from $40,000 to $55,000. • Allow the City to request two or more bids for work covered by Extraordinary Circumstances Grant. Zuccaro noted that the suggested change regarding Extraordinary Circumstances was more of an add -on recommendation for change and was not directly relevant to Resolution 30. Zuccaro continued by describing the integrity and significance of the 601 Lincoln property, which was on the City's priority list for preservation and was one of two cottage -style structures in Louisville. The historic residents had owned the State Mercantile building and other businesses, constituting social significance. Zuccaro noted that the current property owners wanted to make a modern addition to the home, but were also interested in preserving part of the original structure. Zuccaro stated that the Commission had approved one conservation easement for the Rex Theatre building, which had included a non -matching grant of $60,000 to rehabilitate the historic facade. Zuccaro discussed Section 5 and Section 13 of Resolution 17, Series 2019, which allowed for the purchasing of a conservation easement and which also included a grant program for downtown commercial buildings for up to $50,000. Given that 601 Lincoln was a residential structure, he explained that the Commission could make an outright purchase of an easement or they could consider approving Resolution 31 if they wanted to provide funds in the form of a grant. Zuccaro then described the project plans for 601 Lincoln Avenue, clarifying that the staff report had included out-of-date elevations. Zuccaro described the difference between the Landmark Designation and the Front Facade Preservation in the Code, noting that there were zoning incentives for both. However, for the Front Facade Preservation Bonus, there was not requirement to preserve the facade, whereas a landmark required an Alteration Certificate for any changes to the structure. Zuccaro stated that it could be possible to combine the two options so that structures under conservation easements were preserved in perpetuity. He observed that an easement could work for situations in which a larger or addition, or one that was not appropriately subordinate to the historic structure, made a property ineligible for landmarking. He noted that staff would still prefer a subordinate connector with a larger addition in the back in those cases. Zuccaro shared the basics of the grant request for $30,000, which the Commission could approve as a matching grant or an outright purchase, to fund the following categories of work: • Foundation and Crawl Space Repair: $5,000 • Roof and Rafter Repair: $5,000 • Exterior Finishes, Including Siding, Trim, and Front Porch Restoration: $12,500 • Window and Door Replacement: $7,500 Klemme asked about property rights under residential conservation easements. Zuccaro replied that the easement would be a formal, legal document that would run with the property and would make it so that the homeowner could not alter that part of the property. He likened it to a trail along someone's property line. 2