My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2013 05 20
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 05 20
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:09:16 PM
Creation date
5/29/2013 11:33:08 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
HPCPKT 2013 05 20
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
37
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 />April 15, 2013 <br />Page 3 of 7 <br /> <br />Fasick seconded the motion. <br />Watson asked if there could be more specifics placed in the resolution to require half <br />round gutters. <br />Koertje and Fasick agreed. <br />Motion passed 5-0. <br />Public Hearing – Demolition Request – 844 Spruce <br />Watson asked if he needed to recuse himself since he lived in the neighborhood. <br />Stewart stated he did not believe there was a conflict of interest since he had no <br />monetary involvement. <br />Stewart asked to recuse himself since he did have involvement with the project. <br />Koertje took over for Stewart. <br />McCartney presented the information provided in staff’s report. He reminded the HPC <br />this property is outside of the area of influence for the HPF, therefore it is not eligible for <br />grant funding through the City of Louisville. <br />Tom Ramsey, contractor for the project, spoke on behalf of the owner. He stated the <br />owners are not interested in saving the structure primarily due to added costs. <br />Watson asked if there was a soils report and if there were test borings done. <br />Ramsey answered in the affirmative. He stated he did not know the specifics of how <br />deep the expansive soils were. <br />Public Comments <br />Fred Banta, adjacent neighbor, asked a question about the Boulder County graphic and <br />whether it was representative of the property boundaries. <br />McCartney stated it is not a survey, so it is only representational. <br />Watson asked staff if there were any allowances for moving this structure somewhere <br />else on the same property, making it a small accessory structure. <br />McCartney stated there are setbacks, building separations, floor area, and lot coverage <br />that would need to be retained. <br />Commission Comments
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.