Laserfiche WebLink
Historic Preservation Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />August 16, 2010 <br />Page 3 of 8 <br /> <br />Koertje closed the public hearing <br />Commission Questions and Comments <br />Stewart stated this was a great application and he believed the structure had <br />architectural and social significance. <br />Lewis asked Stewart for his definition of carriage house. Stewart gave definition. <br />There was some discussion regarding the enclosed front porch by various <br />members of the commission. <br />Poppitz stated the Commission should not be a design review committee. <br />Applicant should be able to keep porch as is or restore it if they choose. <br />Stewart agreed the owner should be permitted to do what they choose. <br />Koertje stated this was great application. He agreed it had a good architectural <br />and social significance. He also stated the applicant should consider the <br />accessory structure as a future application. <br />Parmenter recanted and asked what it would take to include all of the structures <br />in the landmark application. <br />Lewis asked if we could include the accessory structures in this request. <br />McCartney answered in the affirmative. <br />Lewis stated this was a great application and believed the architectural integrity <br />was strong. <br />Muckle stated there were three aspects of the application: <br />1. Carriage houses are unique to the City of Louisville. <br />2. Agreed the porch enclosure was just as significant as other aspects <br />because it indicated a need of more square footage in the 1950’s. <br />3. Likes the double hung windows. <br />Williams stated he agreed and believed the social history was very interesting. <br />Koertje asked if the fence would be included. <br />Parmenter stated she would pass on including the fence at this time. <br />Lewis asked if the rear addition should be excluded. <br /> <br />