My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Summary 2009 09 30 Joint
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2000-2019 Planning Commission
>
2009 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Summary 2009 09 30 Joint
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:08:27 PM
Creation date
11/23/2009 10:17:52 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Planning Commission and Historic Preservation Commission <br />Joint Study Session Summary <br />SEPETEMBER 30, 2009 <br />Page 2 of 3 <br />Depends on the language in the document. Some language is <br />o <br />mandatory and some is subjective. If it can be measured (height, <br />setback, etc) it is mandatory. <br />There is discretion at Planning Commission and City Council to <br />o <br />give relief. <br /> If there are types of design that we don’t want to see, do we take steps to <br />prevent it? <br />Want to allow the freedom of design. Energy conservation comes <br />o <br />into play – things are changing. <br />We need stronger guidelines in the residential district (Old Town). <br />o <br /> Downtown – what needs to be changed? <br />Intent is to allow flexibility. <br />o <br /> Can HPC make comments on new construction? <br />Yes – jurisdiction only matters with decision making. Needs to be <br />o <br />consistent with other boards - need to the same opportunity. <br /> Is there something that we can change in the design standards to <br />strengthen the regulations but still maintain the flexibility? <br />Create a visual catalogue of what we want to see. <br />o <br /> What should fund incentives? <br />Needs to go above and beyond standards. Should be used to <br />o <br />better control architecture. <br /> Do guidelines need tweaking? <br />Guidelines are good, but they need to be enforced. <br />o <br />More of a policy decision, not a change. <br />o <br /> Should HPC have a role in the review process? <br />Following are questions and comments addressed during the September 30 <br />study session. <br />Questions <br /> Do we have a historic district and can we landmark structures under <br />current regulations? <br /> In the eyes of the city? <br />o <br /> In the eyes of the state and the NPS and Secretary of the Interior? <br />o <br /> If a building proposed for redevelopment is listed as a contributing <br />structure, how does that alter the review process? <br />Comments From Meeting Participants <br /> Guidelines should be enforced more stringently <br /> Pg. 51 of guidelines needs clarification from council <br /> Preserving the character and history of downtown Louisville is a <br />community concern <br />Recommendation #1 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.