My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes 2011 01 10
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
>
2005-2019 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
2011 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes 2011 01 10
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:08:24 PM
Creation date
5/31/2011 1:14:10 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
HPCMIN 2011 01 10
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
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
Historic Preservation Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />January 10, 2011 <br />Page 5 of 7 <br /> <br />There was further discussion between the applicant and the Commission regarding the <br />conservation easement. The primary topic discussed was the maintenance <br />requirements. <br />There was discussion about including the architectural and engineering fees in the <br />grant. The HPC determined to include the architectural and engineering fees in the <br />grant request. <br />There was discussion regarding the design of the marquee. Blanchard explained his <br />current design was based on costs. <br />Lewis asked what material the arch would be. <br />Blanchard answered it would be steel with rope lights. <br />Lewis asked if the light bulb detail, shown on the historical photo, would be included in <br />the new design of the marquee. <br />Blanchard stated the current sign code would not permit the light bulbs. <br />The Commission and Blanchard discussed other specific sign design questions. <br />Lewis and Speier asked how the arch would be designed since the windows appeared <br />to be flush to the building face. Would the windows need to be recessed? <br />Blanchard answered how the arch would be applied without affecting the windows. <br />Lewis stated it appeared the applicant was paying close attention to details. <br />Poppitz asked about exterior lighting. Blanchard answered his question. <br />Speier stated this will be a design improvement from what is currently there today. <br />However, he warned against Main Street becoming Disneyland. <br />Lewis stated she agreed Louisville might look too “fabricated” but said this is not the <br />applicant’s fault. A discussion of this topic should be taken to a much larger forum. <br />Tofte asked fit the scope of work amount was up for discussion. <br />Koertje answered affirmatively. <br />Tofte asked if the Commission thought a marquee should be included in the grant. <br />Lewis stated the marquee should be considered a character defining element. <br />Poppitz asked if the tin was only for the façade or was the entire building going to <br />receive tin. <br />Blanchard answered only the façade. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.