My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2019 12 16
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
>
2005-2019 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
2019 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2019 12 16
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:08:21 PM
Creation date
12/31/2019 11:32:41 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
75
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 18th, 2019 <br />Page 6 of 8 <br />Haley noted that the fact that a lot of the pre-2010 structures were City buildings was <br />good. She stated that the application was how the Commission wanted to use the <br />funds. <br />Dunlap stated that it looked appropriate under the plan at the time. <br />Parris observed that it was not a large amount of money and that the request was <br />appropriate. General agreement. <br />Ulm made a motion to approve Resolution 10, Series 2019 as written. Parris seconded. <br />Motion passed unanimously by roll -call vote. <br />Haley asked for discussion about the staff's request. <br />Ulm stated that he did not think it was an issue, since the Commission had to approve <br />all grants. <br />Dunlap asked if the Commission really had the right to deny the grant amounts. <br />Ulm replied that they were not trying to alter the resolution by reviewing the grant <br />requests. <br />Dickinson asked staff if they needed more clarification. <br />Selvoski replied that staff had wanted to make sure they understood what to do in this <br />situation, since this was the first time it had come up. <br />Haley stated that she felt comfortable leaving it as -is, reasoning that these early <br />applicants were the first to landmark, a lot of them were City buildings, and the <br />Commission still had control over the Fund. <br />917 La Farge Avenue: Probable Cause Hearing. <br />Selvoski presented the application, starting with the historic photos. The structure was <br />built around 1891, had a one-story wood frame construction with a rectangular plan on a <br />concrete foundation, and a hip -on -gable roof with a shed roof over the front porch. <br />Changes included wrought -iron porch posts and railings in 1978, replacement of <br />roofing, gutters, and trim in the same year; window openings enlarged after 1950; <br />windows replaced after 2000; and an outbuilding connected to the main house in 2006. <br />However, staff found that many of these changes were reversible and that the structure <br />met the criteria for architectural significance. <br />She described the social history, starting with the first resident, Antonio Damiana. He <br />was an Italian blacksmith who worked at local mines. The Porta family purchased it <br />when the Damiana family left, in 1921, and owned it for 80 years. Staff finds that this <br />property is significant for its association with Louisville's development as a coal -mining <br />7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.