My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2010 08 16
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 08 16
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2024 12:46:13 PM
Creation date
8/20/2010 9:41:52 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
HPCPKT 2010 08 16
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
56
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
Koertje closed the p ub x °v <br />Historic Preservation Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />July 19, 2010 <br />Page 2 of 6 <br />McCartney presented staff report and PowerPoint presentation. McCartney <br />closed by recommending approval of case because the structure had social <br />significance. <br />Bob Dressler, applicant, presented his case and asked the Commission if they <br />had any questions. He stated the following regarding the structures integrity: <br />Shingles and siding have been replaced to match the original (which had <br />been removed prior to applicants 1984 purchase of the home). <br />Most of the front windows had been renovated. <br />Porch reconstruction includes details from an historoa.l home found back <br />east. �xxxxxxxxx. <br />Muckle asked which windows had been replaced. sed photos on the <br />overhead to show which windows had been rep <br />Muckle asked if Dressler was hoping to resN the remainder obe facade. <br />Dressler stated yes. <br />Koertje asked if the stained glass in the win -s were original. <br />Dressler stated he was not sure but also stated was unlikely they were original. <br />Public Comments none heard <br />Commission Qu <br />Koertje thanked stofxf axx x He went on to state: <br />x isx% %same but the decorative elements are new. <br />id not believe the nev dormer on the roof detracted from the historical <br />Phys hi <br />xx ntegrity is not sufficient (due to loss of historical materials), but <br />xxxxxxx. <br />social his ory *pry strong. <br />Recommends approval of application based on social history. <br />Muckle stated she agrees with Koertje and stated the social history is great. She <br />also stated the architectural style (Queen Anne) is unique to Louisville. She was <br />happy the applicant is interested in landmarking this structure. <br />Lewis agreed with the above statements. She stated the architectural integrity <br />isn't bad but it does need help. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.