My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2014 08 18
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
>
2005-2019 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
2014 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2014 08 18
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:08:17 PM
Creation date
8/21/2014 9:13:59 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
HPCPKT 2014 08 18
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.
/
271
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 />July 21, 2014 <br />Page 3 of 8 <br />Johnson then gave details about the addition showing how he considered the addition was <br />compatible with the existing historical structure by tying the structures together through <br />materials and scale. The intent is to have the historical building as the prominent structure. <br />He added this application is entirely Louisville, since the applicants live and do business in <br />Louisville. This is an investment in Louisville's economy. <br />Mark Zaremba, owner, spoke in regards to the emotional and financial reasoning's behind their <br />application. He stated they moved their family here due to its proximity to Interlocken and <br />have raised their family in the place they now call home. He said he agrees with Johnson's <br />designs. <br />Public Comments <br />None heard <br />Questions for the Applicant <br />Stewart stated he was glad the structural assessment helped and he appreciates the bids in <br />the packet. He added the spreadsheet with the building sizes was very helpful. He asked if <br />the retail component should be larger. <br />Zaremba stated the retail size is based on a discussion he had with another building owner <br />who said 1,100 SF is the "sweet spot" as far as retail space is concerned for Downtown. The <br />balance of the property allows for the residential component, which is very important. <br />Stewart was hoping there was more partnership from the applicant since the City is <br />contributing funds. He added that he liked the high contrast between the existing building and <br />the new construction. He believes it is compatible. <br />Fasick said there appears to be a second false front. <br />Johnson says it is a way to end the existing building and start anew. <br />Fasick said she thought it looked a little confusing. She said she liked the contrast. <br />(La Grave entered the meeting at 7:44 p.m.) <br />Fahey stated she liked the contrast between the two buildings, but agreed the second false <br />front did not make sense. <br />Johnson explained the reasoning behind his design. <br />Fasick said height was fine but the material of the second false front might be the issue. She <br />recommended using the same material from the new building. <br />Haley stated she believes this building is adding and supporting the Downtown character. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.