Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2010 07 19

Home Browse Search

Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes June 21,2010 Page 3 of 8 Stewart stated he was concerned about the existing siding and believed the original siding should be restored. He also stated the social significance was important. Lewis stated she believed the house had architectural integrity, a good social history, and she believed, although the exposed siding was aluminum, it did have the same design as the original. Poppitz stated this was a great example of preservation. Lewis made a motion to approve the ap social significance. Williams seconded th amendment to state the application excludes additions. The motion carried vations and she like the applicant Williams stated he was concerned about the siding, but retained architectural integrity. He also stated the soc. Muckle stated the applicant had done a great job believed the social history was excellent. She to further research preserving the windows. nd art added a endly ge, outhouse and recent Public Hearing - landmark Ap Staff presented recommending social significance. presentation. Staff closed by structure had architectural and s another house on this location prior to vide e to state there had been a previous structure o was chosen as the name. Staff answered th use had been associated with the developers, Fabirzio, who had a history of development in Louisville. Ann Marie Spear, applicant, presented her case and asked the Commission if they had any questions. She stated the following regarding the structures integrity: . The structure is entirely original - no additions. . Windows and doors are in original and are in their original location. . The only modification to the exterior is the placement of a solar panel on the north side of the roof.