My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2010 10 18
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
>
2005-2019 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
2010 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2010 10 18
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2024 12:51:47 PM
Creation date
10/26/2010 2:34:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
HPCPKT 2010 10 18
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
87
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 />September 20, 2010 <br />Page 7 of 11 <br />Tofte asked if the reasoning for the demolition is to allow for the extension of Paschal <br />Drive. <br />Brew answered in the affirmative and added the roadway extension was part of an IGA <br />between Louisville and Lafayette which predated his project. <br />Stewart asked how many single family homes were being proposed. <br />Brew answered 152. <br />Stewart asked if they were ranch or two story. <br />Brew answered ranch. <br />Stewart asked if the existing structure could be reused. <br />Brew stated he did not believe the structure was structurally sound enough o be reused. <br />Tofte asked if the structure could be reused as an office. <br />Brew stated he did not believe it was structurally sound for any type of reuse. <br />Public Comments <br />Erik Harntroft spoke regarding the application stating he hoped the demolition permit <br />would be released. <br />Lewis asked Harntroft if he was an architect on this project. <br />Harntroft stated no. <br />Barb Hessin asked the Commission to please think long and hard on this request. <br />Commission Questions and Comments <br />Stewart stated if the process would have been handled as required, back in 2007, the <br />building could have been reused. It is now considered a missed opportunity. <br />Tofte stated she was one of the subcommittee members and believed the property held <br />a strong social history. <br />Lewis asked Tofte to talk about the structure. <br />Tofte stated the following: <br /> Structure must be habitable because someone is currently living in it. <br /> There is a large crack in the foundation. <br /> The windows looked like they had been replaced. <br /> Needs new roof. <br />Koertje stated this review should have happened 3 years ago. However, he stated the <br />structure does not meet the criteria for architectural integrity and does not believe the <br />social history of the structure has anything to do with the structure. He stated the <br />demolition permit should be released. <br />Muckle stated the social history of the structure, once owned by a Louisville doctor, <br />might have qualified. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.