My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2012 12 17
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 12 17
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:08:16 PM
Creation date
1/18/2013 2:18:15 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
HPCPKT 2012 12 17
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
124
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 />October 15, 2012 <br />Page 3of 8 <br />Lewis stated she believed this structure appears to allow for additional space to be added on <br />without disrupting the character. <br />Public Hearing –Landmark Request –1036 Walnut <br />Robinson presented staff’s report for the landmark request. He stated there wasn’t <br />much architectural significance and social significance to make this structure eligible for <br />landmarking. He added staff did a survey of other structures in the neighborhood and <br />determined there are other structures in the neighborhood which appear to have <br />architectural integrity and could be eligible for landmarking. <br />Koertje questioned staff as to how they applied the landmarking criteria to make a <br />determination this structure did not have architectural integrity even though it appears to <br />be a structure typical to Louisville –modified miners cabin. <br />Robinson stated it is staffs opinion the structure is not architecturallyintegral to <br />Louisville’s development. <br />Koertje asked staff to go over what appears to have changed with the structure. <br />Robinson gave a verbal listing of all of the items staff believes had been changed, <br />including siding and windows. <br />Stewart asked if the applicant had any further information they would like to add. <br />Poppitz presented some additional information, comparing his house with other houses <br />in the surrounding neighborhood. <br />Public Comments <br />John Leary stated he believed the social history was compelling because one family <br />owned the house for over 100 years. <br />Commission Questions/Comments <br />Lewis asked staff if a structurecan be approved for landmarking based on certain <br />elements of the structure being integral. <br />Stewart stated it could be considered contributing with qualifications. <br />Robinson stated there has not been a landmark of this nature before but he believed it <br />could be done. <br />Stewart gave his understanding for the purpose of landmarking; 1) preserve the <br />structure, and 2) monitor modifications or changes. <br />Lewis stated this structure has vinyl siding, metal windows and not much architectural <br />integrity. Ithas limited street appeal. <br />Watson asked if there was original siding underneath the vinyl siding. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.