My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2014 12 15
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 12 15
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:08:18 PM
Creation date
12/29/2014 11:02:18 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
HPCPKT 2014 12 15
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
72
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 />November 17, 2014 <br />Page 3 of 10 <br />Public Comment <br />Jean Morgan stated this sign, in her opinion, is the biggest element of Louisville. She <br />asked when the sign could come down based on the application. <br />Trice stated the stay would end in February. <br />Morgan stated citizens of Lafayette used to use the beacon above the Empire Sign to <br />determine if the power was still on in Louisville. She said the sign is a landmark and <br />should not be removed. <br />Tom Rafferty, 945 Rex Street, stated he believed the sign is as important as the Grain <br />Elevator and other items which have gone before this board. <br />Commission Discussion <br />Watson asked Trice what the negotiations have been with the City. <br />Trice stated they have discussed what the best approach would be to save the sign, <br />whether it is landmarking the building or the sign or both. <br />Stewart asked what the reasons were for delays on the application. <br />Trice stated it was due to the fullness of the October agenda and staff waiting on the <br />assessment to be completed. <br />Stewart stated the code is fairly specific about the timelines for a demolition permit. He <br />also stated it appears the project is more of a removal and replace of the same sign, <br />and asked if staff required the same for the Blue Parrot. <br />Trice stated no. <br />Stewart asked the owner if he has any intentions to get rid of the sign. <br />Cohen stated no. <br />Stewart then asked why he applied for a demolition request. <br />Cohen stated it was his belief that if he was going to take down the sign for repair he <br />needed a demolition permit. He stated they want to keep it as is as long as they can but <br />will be open for options for what needs to be done to keep the maintenance costs low. <br />He stated the intent is to keep the sign. <br />Stewart stated technically they are charged to determine if this structure is a landmark <br />and, if it is determined to be eligible, whether to place a 180 day stay on it. <br />Watson stated if they put a stay on the property then we can go through all the <br />necessary steps to determine how to best approach this project. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.