My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes 2010 06 21 APPROVED
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 Minutes 2010 06 21 APPROVED
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:08:24 PM
Creation date
9/10/2010 8:37:32 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
HPCMIN 2010 06 21 APPROVED
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
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 />June 21, 2010 <br />Page 3 of 8 <br /> <br />Stewart stated he was concerned about the existing siding and believed the <br />original siding should be restored. He also stated the social significance was <br />important. <br />Lewis stated she believed the house had architectural integrity, a good social <br />history, and she believed, although the exposed siding was aluminum, it did have <br />the same design as the original. <br />Poppitz stated this was a great example of preservation. <br />Williams stated he was concerned about the siding, but believed the house <br />retained architectural integrity. He also stated the social history was important. <br />Muckle stated the applicant had done a great job with the renovations and she <br />believed the social history was excellent. She stated she would like the applicant <br />to further research preserving the windows. <br />Lewis made a motion to approve the application based on architectural and <br />social significance. Williams seconded the motion. Stewart added a friendly <br />amendment to state the application excludes the garage, outhouse and recent <br />additions. The motion carried 6 – 0. <br />Public Hearing – Landmark Application – 557 Jefferson <br /> <br />Koertje opened public hearing. <br />Staff presented staff report and PowerPoint presentation. Staff closed by <br />recommending approval of case because the structure had architectural and <br />social significance. <br />Muckle asked staff if there was another house on this location prior to <br />construction of this home. <br />Staff stated there was no evidence to state there had been a previous structure <br />on this site. <br />Koertje asked why Fabrizio was chosen as the name. <br />Staff answered the house had been associated with the developers, Fabirzio, <br />who had a history of development in Louisville. <br />Ann Marie Spear, applicant, presented her case and asked the Commission if <br />they had any questions. She stated the following regarding the structures <br />integrity: <br /> <br /> The structure is entirely original – no additions. <br /> <br /> Windows and doors are in original and are in their original location. <br /> <br /> The only modification to the exterior is the placement of a solar panel on <br />the north side of the roof. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.