My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2021 09 20
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
>
2021 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2021 09 20
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/20/2021 4:25:59 PM
Creation date
9/20/2021 9:54:08 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Meeting Date
9/20/2021
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
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.
/
204
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 />16 August 2021 <br />Page 7 of 8 <br />Mundelein stated that his understanding of the preservation codes was that demolishing the <br />back did not preclude involvement in preservation programs. He thought that they could talk to <br />staff within the week and that process could be done even if they moved forward with <br />demolition. <br />Mazur stated he didn't think they needed to labor over what could be done and he was anxious <br />to get going and was excited to see what the Commission could offer. <br />Haley asked for the total length of the house. <br />Mundelein estimated 24 feet. <br />Zuccaro reviewed the criteria for a preservation bonus, which was the first 12 feet or 25%. That <br />option offered no money and contained no covenants or agreements. He also reviewed the <br />demolition criteria. <br />Haley summarized that the Commission agreed that they wanted to place a stay, but wanted to <br />shorten it from staff's recommendation. The Commission discussed the length of the stay, <br />weighing staff workload and time passed. <br />Burg made a motion to place a 45-day stay. Klemme seconded. Motion passed unanimously by <br />roll call vote. <br />ITEMS FROM STAFF <br />Bauer stated that the Commission would continue to do zoom meetings through September. <br />She reminded the commissioners that they were invited to sign up to be interviewed for the Old <br />Town Overlay reevaluation process. <br />Zuccaro described the Old Town Overlay reevaluation process. The City had hired consultants <br />to study and update the Overlay, which included the landmarking and preservation bonuses in <br />that code. <br />UPDATES FROM COMMISSION MEMBERS <br />Update from the Coloring Book List of Selected Landmarks <br />Bauer presented the list of proposed landmarks for the coloring book <br />Klemme noted that the subcommittee had put the Blue Parrot sign in the commercial structures <br />list because it added some different elements to that section and it would be going up in the <br />library soon. <br />Burg stated that there were many good options for residential and they tried to represent <br />different eras as well as the social and economic history of Louisville. <br />Haley stated that the Empire sign could be put in place of the Blue Parrot and Commissioner <br />Klemme responded that the words of the sign were not historical even though she preferred the <br />look of that sign. Haley stated that the whole structure would be relevant for Empire but the Blue <br />Parrot sign was probably more fun to color and was nice to include since it wasn't on the street <br />anymore. <br />A <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.