My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes 2011 03 21
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 03 21
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:08:25 PM
Creation date
5/31/2011 1:19:16 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
HPCMIN 2011 03 21
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
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 />March 21, 2011 <br />Page 2 of 9 <br /> <br />McCartney stated the EE was a study to determine the potential environmental impacts, <br />but does not limit or restrict use of the property. <br />Lewis asked if the Rod and Gun Club knows of this demolition request. <br />Fasick answered the demolition request was listed on the Rod and Gun Club website. <br />Koertje asked if the warranty deeds were specific to the property, including legal <br />description. <br />McCartney was unsure and stated the applicant might be able to answer the question. <br />Rick Brew, representing the applicant, presented and had the following comments: <br /> <br /> Believes some parts of the building are interesting and should be reused. <br /> <br /> Willing to work with HPC on design concepts over the next few months. <br /> <br /> Deed does include the property. <br />Koertje stated there appears to be a disconnect with the ownership of the property. He <br />explained how the change in ownership has not been recorded with Boulder County. <br />Brew answered he understands, but the property is under appropriate ownership and <br />the County takes time to record the documents. It can take as long as six (6) months <br />for the Boulder County web page to reflect the property ownership change. <br />Koertje asked for Brew to pass along his reception number at a later date. <br />Stewart asked what the intent was for development of the property. <br />Brew stated they are interested in establishing a planned unit development (PUD). <br />Public Comments <br />Jean Morgan stated she hoped the HPC would direct the applicant to keep the building <br />on site. She also stated this building is important to the history and character of the City <br />of Louisville. <br />John Leary stated he believed a stay is needed for this property. He added he was <br />concerned with the process, specifically in regards to reviewing this demolition request <br />when the applicant does not have a plan in place. He also stated without a plan, there <br />is no chance to discuss potential incentives. <br />Commission Comments / Questions <br />Koertje read from the criteria for demolition and determined the structure could be <br />eligible for landmarking. He added he believes it is appropriate to place a stay. <br />Poppitz stated he hopes the developer could find a way to re-use the structure for their <br />future plans. <br />Lewis stated she believed the structure was clearly eligible for landmarking, based on <br />the criteria and the importance to the City of Louisville. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.