My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes 2021 09 20
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
>
2021 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes 2021 09 20
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/3/2022 3:02:09 PM
Creation date
2/3/2022 2:56:05 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Meeting Date
9/20/2021
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Quality Check
2/3/2022
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
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 />20 September 2021 <br />Page 2 of 4 <br />Bauer replied that there was an assessment for this property and it included other deficiencies <br />on the site. <br />Caroline Ford and Christopher Beam, applicants, thanked the Commission and staff, and stated <br />that they had a couple of other pressing projects coming up, including fixing the structure of the <br />roof. Ms. Ford asked if putting a snow fence to deal with snow from their solar panels would <br />affect the historic elements of the site. <br />Haley stated that they would have to formally review it to know for sure but in general if an <br />element could be removed it could be okay with the historic preservation process. <br />Dunlap commented that there had been national conversations about solar panels on historic <br />structures and the general thought was that the environmental considerations should take <br />precedence. <br />Seeing no public comment, Chair Haley opened commissioner discussion. <br />Discussion on the location of the solar panels, in which it was stated that the solar panels were <br />not visible in the staff packet images and did not seem to affect the architectural view of the <br />building. <br />Klemme stated that the structure met the criteria for landmarking and the dormer on the side did <br />not affect the ability to landmark. <br />Burg noted that moving houses was not uncommon historically and stated that the architecture <br />was representative of place and style around Louisville. <br />Klemme moved to approve Resolution 6, Series 2021, and Dunlap seconded. Motion approved <br />unanimously by roll call vote. <br />Klemme stated that since 1948 no one had expanded or changed the windows, which was <br />great, and the proposed change was a swap to have windows that would be better for energy <br />bills but would not affect historic preservation. <br />Dunlap asked if there was a guide for historic styles that would help the Commission assess the <br />language about windows maintaining a similar style or if the Commission was meant to use their <br />subjective judgement on that language. <br />Bauer replied there was Preservation Brief 9 from the National Park Service about windows and <br />there were books like Virginia McCalister's guide to architectural styles. <br />Dunlap stated that the re -visitation of the Old Town Overlay was addressing materials through <br />resident surveys and that might be a good place for notes on styles. <br />Bauer replied that she would make a note of Commissioner Dunlap's idea and shared that staff <br />also assessed style when reviewing these proposals. <br />Klemme moved to approve Resolution 7, Series 2021 and Burg seconded. Motion approved <br />unanimously by roll call vote. <br />2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.