My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2013 02 11
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
>
2005-2019 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
2013 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2013 02 11
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:08:16 PM
Creation date
2/15/2013 2:47:44 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
HPCPKT 2013 02 11
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
126
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 14, 2013 <br />Page 3 of 9 <br />Fasick stated she agreed with Koertje.She recommended a stay as well so there can <br />be more discussion regarding the entry door. <br />Motion <br />Fasick made a motion to place a full stay on this structure, but have the structure <br />brought back for the Februarymeeting for an update. <br />Koertje asked to add Watson as the volunteer for design assistance. <br />Hayley seconded the motion. <br />Motion carried 3 – 0.Watson abstaining. <br />Stewart re-entered the meeting. <br />Public Hearing – Demolition Request – 713 Spruce <br />Stewart stated he knew the general contractor and they share clients. He asked the <br />commission if they believed he had a conflict of interest. He stated he felt he could be <br />objective. <br />Koertje stated he did not believe there was a conflict of interest. <br />Robinson presented the information provided in staff’s report.He stated this structure <br />has strong early social history significantto the City of Louisville.However the structure <br />does not have architectural integrity because there have been several changes to the <br />street façade. The request is for a total demolition. <br />Koertje asked if the front facing bay window is gone. <br />Robinson answered in the affirmative. <br />Stewart asked what comments the sub-committee had during their review. <br />Robinson stated they believed the social history was strong enough to request a public <br />hearing review. <br />Dave Dupuis presented as the owner of the structure. He stated the architectural form <br />is worse than it appears due to the changes to the structure. <br />Commission Comments <br />Fasick asked if there was a garage in the back. <br />Robinson stated the garage was detached and located in the rear of the property. <br />(Commissioner La Grave entered the meeting at 7:40 p.m.) <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.