My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2023 04 24
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
>
2023 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2023 04 24
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/5/2023 2:53:57 PM
Creation date
5/5/2023 2:22:12 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Meeting Date
4/24/2023
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
Table of Staff Analysis on Relevant Design Handbook Criteria <br />Criteria <br />Analysis <br />G1. All projects should respect the traditional context <br />The proposal reflects the surrounding <br />of downtown ... the broader context of the block and <br />context by adapting existing forms <br />the town at large. <br />and maintaining the one-story scale <br />currently on the property. <br />T2. Develop the ground floor level of all projects to be <br />The recessed doorway and large <br />at a pedestrian scale. <br />display windows can be observed in <br />• Porches, bays and other building details <br />nearby traditional architecture. <br />similar to those seen on nearby historic <br />buildings are encouraged to provide visual <br />interest and human scale. <br />G20. New construction should appear similar in mass <br />The proposal does not change the <br />and scale to structures found traditionally in the area. <br />mass of the existing building and <br />provides a minimal increase in scale <br />of the existing fagade. <br />G23. Respect the sense of time and place in all <br />The proposal uses new materials <br />projects. <br />and colors, clearly marking it as a <br />• One should be able to perceive some of the <br />modern development. <br />character of the area as it evolved historically. <br />G24. New interpretations of traditional building styles <br />The proposal combines a traditional <br />are encouraged. <br />false -front form and large windows <br />• A new design that draws upon the <br />with new, modern materials. <br />fundamental similarities among traditional <br />buildings in the community without copying <br />them is preferred. This will allow them to be <br />seen as products as their own time yet <br />compatible with their older neighbors. <br />• Applying highly ornamental details that were <br />not a part of building in Louisville is <br />discouraged. <br />G25. Building components should be similar in scale <br />The proposal is for a new fagade on <br />to those used traditionally. <br />an existing one-story building. <br />G27. Avoid stylistic details that confuse the history of <br />The proposal is a modern design <br />Louisville. <br />with minimal ornamentation and does <br />• Use ornamental details with restraint. <br />not include historic details. <br />• Historic details that were not found in <br />Louisville are discouraged. <br />• Elaborate "Victorian" ornamentation, which is <br />atypical in Louisville, is discouraged. Exact <br />copying or replication of historic styles is also <br />discouraged. <br />G28. Theme designs are not appropriate in downtown <br />The proposal is not a theme design. <br />Louisville. <br />G29. Maintain the existing range of exterior wall <br />The proposal includes horizontal <br />material found in downtown. <br />siding, no stucco or rustic shakes, <br />and combines different materials. <br />16 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.