My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2012 10 15
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 10 15
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:08:16 PM
Creation date
10/15/2012 8:28:32 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
HPCPKT 2012 10 15
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
Department of Planning and Building Safety <br />749 Main Street Louisville CO 80027 303.335.4592 www.louisvilleco.gov <br />MM <br />EMORANDU <br />To: Historic Preservation Commission Members <br />From:Department of Planning and Building Safety <br />Subject:1036 Walnut Landmark Hearing Continuance <br />Date: October 15, 2012 <br />This item was continued from the September 17, 2012 meeting. Staff’s <br />recommendation remains denial of the landmark application for the reasons <br />stated in the staff report dated September 17, 2012, below. <br />One of the reasons stated for the continuance was so the HPC could gain a <br />better sense of the structures east of the BNSF tracks and how 1036 Walnut <br />compares to them. Staff walked the neighborhood, observing the houses, and <br />determined that denying this landmark application would not set a precedent <br />such that no structures east of the tracks could qualify for landmarking. There <br />are several structures in the area with architectural significance and integrity, <br />including some strong examples of typical minerscabins.Please see the <br />examples below. <br />Staff also received a question about the differences between federal, state, and <br />local significance criteria. The federal and state criteria look at the same general <br />categories that the local criteria do. The difference is in the scope. For <br />something to be on the federal register, it must be significant to national history, <br />and important to state history to be on the state register. Local landmarks need <br />only be significant to local history. The criteria are thesame for structures and <br />districts, though for districts it is the district as a whole that must be significant, so <br />each structure does not need to be individually as significant. The federal criteria <br />are: <br />The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture <br />is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, <br />design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and: <br />A. That are associated withevents that have made a significant contribution to the broad <br />patterns of our history; or <br />B. That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or <br />C. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or <br />that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a <br />significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or <br />D. That have yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.