My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes 2010 07 19 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 07 19 APPROVED
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:08:24 PM
Creation date
9/10/2010 8:38:19 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
HPCMIN 2010 07 19 APPROVED
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
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 />July 19, 2010 <br />Page 2 of 6 <br /> <br />McCartney presented staff report and PowerPoint presentation. McCartney <br />closed by recommending approval of case because the structure had social <br />significance. <br /> <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 /> <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 /> <br /> Most of the front windows had been renovated. <br /> <br /> Porch reconstruction includes details from an historical home found back <br />east. <br />Muckle asked which windows had been replaced. Dressler used photos on the <br />overhead to show which windows had been replaced. <br />Muckle asked if Dressler was hoping to restore the remainder of the façade. <br />Dressler stated yes. <br />Koertje asked if the stained glass in the windows were original. <br />Dressler stated he was not sure but also stated it was unlikely they were original. <br />Public Comments – none heard <br />Koertje closed the public hearing <br />Commission Questions and Comments <br />Koertje thanked staff for a complete staff report. He went on to state: <br /> <br /> Basic structure is the same but the decorative elements are new. <br /> <br /> Did not believe the newer dormer on the roof detracted from the historical <br />façade. <br /> <br /> Physical integrity is not sufficient (due to loss of historical materials), but <br />social history is very strong. <br /> <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 /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.