My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2012 07 16
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
>
2005-2019 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
2012 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2012 07 16
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:08:16 PM
Creation date
7/11/2012 11:02:31 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
HPCPKT 2012 07 16
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
84
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 />June 18, 2012 <br />Page 5 of 10 <br />Jessica FasickAbsent <br />Florian Speier Yes <br />Aquiles La GraveYes <br />Peter StewartYes <br />Kirk WatsonYes <br />Motion approved:5 to 1 <br />Motion passed 5 to 1. <br />Public Hearing – 612 Lincoln Avenue – DemoRequest <br />Robinson presented the information in the packet. Staff is recommending a 6 month <br />stay. <br />Lewis inquired if the driveway had been removed from original date of construction. <br />Robison stated it appeared they had added more concrete. It appears to be in the <br />original location. <br />Stewart asked if the windows were all in the same location. <br />Robinson stated he believed so. <br />There was discussion on the social significance and the fact there were some war <br />veterans who once lived here. <br />Koertje stated this was a great example of a structure which should receive a stay, <br />primarily based on the architectural integrity which is very strong, and believed this <br />structure would easily be eligible for landmarking and should receive a 6 month stay. <br />Speier stated he agreed and added the applicant did not provide any future plans, such <br />as the previous applicant. <br />Lewis believed this is a great architectural example of Louisville’s strong period of <br />mining. <br />La Grave stated he agreed. <br />Koertje made a motion to place a 180 day stay and should have an HPC architect <br />provide assistance. <br />architectural <br />Lewis seconded. Motion carries 6 to 0. <br />Stewart asked for a volunteer. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.