My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2013 12 16
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 12 16
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:08:17 PM
Creation date
1/2/2014 7:46:18 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
HPCPKT 2013 12 16
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
232
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 Nlinutes <br />November 19, 2013 <br />Page 5 of 11 <br />• It is eligible as a State Register historical district or a Local historic district, criteria <br />A with a significance of 1880 to 1980. <br />• The date of 1980 captures most of the modifications occurred. <br />• Not eligible for social history of mining or association with Charles Welch, <br />because Welch did not live here or maintain his office here. <br />• The lack of social history of mining is because we weren't able to find any <br />relevance to meeting places for strikes or any other association. <br />• For it to qualify for a National Registry each building would have to be 50 years <br />or older, which makes the period of significance between 1880 and 1963. <br />• It could be eligible for a National Registry but there would need to be more data <br />received to show its qualifications prior to 1963. <br />Lingo then spoke directly to a PowerPoint presentation and referred to the maps she <br />showed on the screen. She showed properties which were shown as non - contributing. <br />Stewart asked why 928 Lafarge was not considered contributing. <br />Lingo said the windows have been slightly modified, the siding has been removed, and <br />there were additions made to the rear of the property. <br />Lingo added from 1948 into the 1950's there are good documentation due to Boulder <br />County Assessor records. <br />Lingo stated a State Registered district is hard to achieve because they need 100% <br />approval of the owners within the district. She stated the State recommended doing a <br />smaller district, such as the Zarini structures, but the State Registry districts do not need <br />to be contiguous. <br />Stewart asked where we were in the process. <br />Lingo stated the project is completed. <br />La Grave inquired about Federal tax credit for income producing properties. <br />Lingo stated the property would need to be considered contributing and located within a <br />listed National Registered historical district. <br />Watson stated it is also for an individually listed property. <br />Stewart stated one of the advantages for being in the district is to qualify for the tax <br />credits if the qualify. <br />Lingo stated the State does provide tax credits for contributing properties within a <br />Locally listed historic districts, if they qualify. <br />Koertje stated the State tax credits are not limited to income producing properties. <br />Lingo answered in the affirmative. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.