My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2022 10 17
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
>
2022 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2022 10 17
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/27/2022 4:59:37 PM
Creation date
10/27/2022 1:24:08 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Meeting Date
10/17/2022
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Text box
ID:
1
Creator:
Created:
10/27/2022 1:24 PM
Modified:
10/27/2022 1:24 PM
Text:
https://library.municode.com/co/louisville/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT15BUCO_CH15.36HIPR_S15.36.200CRDERENNDBU
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
38
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
CRITERIA FOR DEMOLITION REVIEW: <br />The Historic Preservation Commission should review the demolition permit application based <br />upon any of the following criteria in Section 15.36.200(H) of the Louisville Municipal Code <br />LMC : <br />Criteria <br />Meets <br />Evaluation <br />Criteria? <br />1. The eligibility of the building for <br />Yes <br />AA e <br />designation as an individual <br />The principal structure was <br />landmark consistent with the <br />constructed before 1950, making it <br />purposes and standards in this <br />older than 72 years old. <br />chapter, <br />a. Age <br />No <br />Significance <br />b. Significance <br />This house is associated with <br />c. Physical Integrity <br />Louisville mining history through miner <br />Tom Milo. In addition, according to <br />oral histories, the structure itself was <br />moved from the Monarch Mine camp <br />under Milo's ownership. <br />Yes <br />Integrity <br />The structure remains it its original <br />location and setting, and appears to <br />maintain the footprint and exterior <br />characteristics of the original structure. <br />2. The relationship of the building as a <br />No <br />The house is not located in a historic <br />potential contributing structure to a <br />district. <br />potential historical district per the <br />criteria set forth in this chapter; <br />3. The reasonable condition of the <br />Unknown <br />The Chief Building Official for the City <br />building*, and <br />visited the property and noted several <br />burnt floor joists and relayed to the <br />applicant that an engineering firm <br />could give direction on the structure. <br />The applicant did not provide any <br />documentation regarding the condition <br />of the property. <br />4. The reasonable projected cost of <br />Unknown <br />A specific projected cost was not <br />restoration or repair.* <br />included as part of the application. <br />* In considering the condition of the building and the projected cost of restoration or repair as set <br />forth in subsections H.3 and H.4, above, the commission may not consider deterioration caused <br />by unreasonable neglect. <br />HISTORIC CONTEXT REPORT: <br />rd <br />11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.