Revitalization Committee Agenda and Packet 2023 08 23

Home Browse Search

Revitalization Commission Minutes July 12, 2023 Page 6of8 Commissioner Smith asked how LRC can use the carrot to target vacant buildings? The member of the public noted that one thing that holds Louisville back is that they cost more than the program recognizes. Taking a property to next level to be leasable long-term takes more than the funding available in the programs, including historic preservation. When you have the ability to go beyond stated limits it might be more incentive for owners to take advantage of the program. The current programs aren't game changers. Commissioner Smith noted that looking at limits has to be done. Property owner of 916 Main Street noted that penalties are not supportive. She is a recent purchaser of a building on Main Street and is happy to discuss that process. She would love to put a fire sprinkler in the building, but with the problems and limitations the incentives aren't a drop in the bucket when renovating a Main Street property. She suggested a a more custom approach to each property, a review of what it looks like and what it would need, a more visionary approach to what types of buildings you want to see downtown and how to recruit for incentives for each individual property. You won't be able to fit properties into a generic box. By the time she learned about incentives, they didn't fit her needs. Fapade Improvement Program Application: Schlageter Properties, LLC (aD_ 916 Main Street The EV Specialist presented the Fagade Improvement Program Application for Schlageter Properties, LLC at 916 Main Street. The building has gone through historic preservation process and the original design has been changed to preserve original design. It is going through PUD application process. Staff recommends approval with LRC approval of funding amount. Commissioner Comments: Commissioner Harald commented that he wants to ensure LRC doesn't run out of funding for this program and make sure LRC isn't foregoing future opportunities for support. He asked the applicant about project contingencies and why two are necessary. The architect responded that the original estimate didn't include full construction drawings. The contingency is likely not to be adequate to cover the costs of the project. If the project doesn't spend it, it won't be allocated. Commissioner Harald would be inclined to reduce this amount a little to ensure availability of funds for future applications. Commissioner Williams noted that, on the one hand, if we fund this application we almost exhaust funding, but they applied and meet criteria. She suggested the LRC fund the application and if another property owner is interested in the program all the better. Commissioner Smith agreed that this application should be approved. Councilmember Leh agreed that Commissioner Harald raises a good point. One of the things that is important is consistency, predictability and the City following through with implied obligations. This program has been very successful, and our responsibility is to budget accordingly. If we need more funding, we should consider this in general. It's incumbent upon LRC to resolve this problem, not on the applicant. Commissioner Leh is in favor of approving this application. The bigger issue is about having a program with criteria which have been met and LRC should fund it. Agenda Packet P. 8