Laserfiche WebLink
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 />