Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHistoric Preservation Commission March 18, 2024 Historic Preservation Commission MINUTES March 18, 2024 Vice President Johnna Anderson called to order the March 18,2024 Historic Preservation Commission meeting at 5:30 p.m. in the Building Commission Conference Room at City Hall, 500 Quartermaster Court. Members present were, Johnna Anderson, Jourdan Ford, Lisa Green, Maggie Moore,Jason Schlatter and Paul Torp. President Ed Siewert absent. Also,present Laura Renwick, Historic Preservation staff advisor and Administrative Assistant Mary Frey. Guest, Jason Sams, Emily Estes, Jared Talley, Cori Horvath and Josh Watts. Agenda Lisa Green made a motion to approve the March 18, 2024 agenda seconded by Maggie Moore and approved unanimously. Minutes Johnna Anderson made a motion to approve the Monday February 12, 2023 minutes, seconded by Lisa Green and approved unanimously. Certificate of Appropriateness Jason Sams appeared before the Board to request a certificate of appropriateness for window replacement at 332 Spring Street. Jason stated Arc purchased the building about 7 months ago and has no plans for its use. Jason presented a moderate metal storefront window with dark glass and bronze in color. Jason stated that several windows have broken or painted panes. Jason stated the interior shows signs of rust, water intrusion and they would like to replace the windows with a modern storefront window. Jason stated that several surrounding businesses have existing window style like the one he is presenting. Laura Renwick questioned if the existing bars on the windows are being maintained and if the glass pattern will be different from existing pattern. Lisa Green ask how many panes will the replacement windows have. Paul Torp stated ordinance: "If a window has deteriorated beyond repair, window replacements should match the original or the style of the building in proportion,pane configuration,material,profiles, texture and color."Jason Sams believes the windows are beyond repair and would like approval for replacement windows as presented. Jason Sams ask if he keeps the front windows the same configuration as present and installed the new ones on the sides if that would work. Paul Torp stated that the building is a significant historical building and that if the current windows could be repaired or maintained it would be better. Paul stated that if windows are replaced they should be of like kind. Aluminum frame windows are not appropriate for this building. Jason Sams ask if board would be good with front windows matching existing and replace the windows on the sides as presented would be acceptable. Lisa Green stated that because of the historical significance of this building all windows should stay historic. Paul Torp stated that the ordinance should be followed and the appearance of the windows should remain. Jason Sams ask if we are sure current windows are original and Laura stated yes. Jason Slater stated to help reduce cost, construction of new windows could potentially get look back. Lisa stated that this building is a very significant historical building on Spring Street. Paul Torp stated you may be able to custom fabricate windows to duplicate a more similar pattern. Lisa Green stated the windows presented are too much of a noticeable change for this significant building. Jason Sams stated nothing is changing, only repairing windows because of broken glass,water leaks and lack of maintenance. Jason Sams ask if it would be acceptable if he would tighten up window grids on Spring Street. Lisa Green made a motion to deny the COA for new windows as presented, Paul Torp seconded. Historic Preservation Commission MINUTES March 18, 2024 Jason Sams ask if he could get the windows presented with the current grid pattern would that be acceptable. Paul Torp stated that the replacement windows should have the likeness of the current windows and that they need to look like the current windows. Jason stated that he showed several neighboring businesses that have windows like those he presented. Paul stated that this building is a significant historic building and that sometimes the placement of storm windows will help preserve the historic value. Lisa questioned if Laura knew of any tax credits or possible grant monies to help with window replacement. Laura did not know of any at this time. Jason ask if he could match the grid pattern and the mullions on the three front windows and get the four windows on each side to look similar would that work. Laura stated she would like to see more specifics. Jason stated he would get updated pictures and come back. Laura stated there could possibly some issues with the weight of the windows. Paul Torp stated again, if a window has deteriorated beyond repair, window replacements should match the original or the style of the building in proportion, pane configuration,materials, profiles, texture and color. Paul also said again steel may be a little tough, and aluminum may be acceptable. Lisa Green made a motion to table this application until Jason Sams returns with samples of similar windows to match existing windows, seconded by Jourdan Ford and approved unanimously. Jared Talley and Emily Estes appeared before the Board to request a certificate of appropriateness for property located at 509 Spring Street. The request is for installation of a 6-foot black steel three bar fence with no adornments on the top. The fence will be adjacent to the south end of building for a proposed employee area. Lisa Green made a motion to approve the fence as presented, seconded by Jason Slater and approved unanimously. Cori Horvath and Josh Watts appeared on behalf of owners/applicants Chandni Dhanjal and Khapil Hora. The property is located at 415 E. Riverside Drive and they are requesting a certificate of appropriateness to repair/replace damaged soffits, crown molding and rotten wood on the exterior of the structure. The windows will remain,no railing will change and the property will be painted. The doors will remain with fresh paint and the deck in the rear of the house will be rebuilt. They are also proposing a 6 ft. privacy fence. Josh stated they are not sure of fence material and ask if there was a preference. Laura stated the fence must be wood and vinyl is not an option. Paul Torp questioned if the fence should be treated wood or painted. Laura stated painted is recommended. Two accessary structures are being proposed in the rear of the property,no approval needed, as they are not visible for public view. Laura questioned if masonry work is being proposed and Josh stated at some point the necessary tuck pointing will be addressed. Laura stated to make sure contractor knows lots of lime, as the mortar needs to be soft. Laura stated if rear stairs/deck has a major change it would need reviewed. Jason Slater ask how tall is the dome, Josh stated possibly 10 ft. Jason Slater made a motion to approve the certificate of appropriateness for 415 E. Riverside Dr. to repair/replace/tuck point and rebuild rear stairs. The fence would need to be painted wood and be installed in the rear yard, stopping at the north rear corners of the structure. Paul Torp seconded with fence material being approved in house by Laura Renwick. The motion passed unanimously. Lisa Green made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Jason Schlatter. Next scheduled meeting will be April 2024. i . ..j- Minutes Approved: CS • Submitted by: YYl(LL K 41-g C`a BEFORE THE JEFFERSONVILLE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION STATE OF INDIANA IN RE THE APPLICATION FOR CERTIFITIATE OF APPROPRIATENESS AT 332 SPRING STREET CASE#: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS IN SUPPORT OF DENIAL OF APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS Comes now the applicant, ARC-Spring Street, LLC, having filed an application for certificate of appropriateness for 332 Spring Street, and the Commission having heard testimony and evidence on March 18, 2024 and April 8, 2024, hereby finds the following: 1. That the building is located in the Historic District. 2. That the building was constructed in 1920 and was designed by noted local architect Arthur Loomis. 2. That the applicant is proposing to replace the original windows in the building with new metal windows including storefront display windows. The proposal would alter the pane configuration of the windows. 3. That the existing and original windows are primarily multi-lite metal easement units with some double-hung sash on the secondary elevations of the building. 4. That this matter was tabled at the Commission's meeting on March 18, 2024 per the applicant's request. 5.That the applicant has since revised its proposal with a new design reflecting the existing pane configuration on the façade of the building. 6. That side elevations are unchanged in the applicant's revised proposal with the large windows on these elevations reduced from 16 lites to 8 lites. Meanwhile,the two-over-two double hung windows would be replaced by fixed, single sheets of glass. The panes within the new windows would also each be the same size, and the muntins framing the panes would be uniform. All of which would be significantly different from the existing and original windows on the side elevations. 7. That staff has walked through the building to observe the condition of the existing windows. Those observations did reveal some rust in places, particularly on the lower rail. Staff also observed that some of the windows do not shut tightly, but Staff concluded that the existing windows largely appear to be in relatively good condition and not beyond repair. 8. That the applicant has submitted a report from KPG Glass outlining several concerns with the existing windows including broken frames, air filtration, obsolete hardware and compromise seals. 9. That KPG Glass rated the overall condition of the existing windows as "poor" even though several of the deficiencies such as cracked glass and obsolete hardware could be readily repaired. 10. That Staff reports that the applicant during the site visit stated that there was no desire to have the windows in the building operable. With this being the case, Staff has encouraged the applicant to repair existing windows while installing storm windows. Such action would be a feasible alternative to improve energy efficiency and would satisfy the standards and guidelines set forth by the Commission. However,the applicant has not pursued this alternative which would preserve the original windows in the building. 11. That the Commission's design guidelines regarding windows states the following: a. Original windows, hardware, hoods, lintels, pediments, sash, shutters and sills should be preserved and repaired. b. Retain original window opening, pattern and size. c. Deteriorated parts of a window should be repaired if possible or replaced in-kind, with replacement parts matching the original in size, material and details. d. If a window has deteriorated beyond repair, window replacements should match the original or the style of the building in proportion,pane configuration, materials, profiles, texture and color. e. Replacement windows should be made to fit the existing openings— existing openings should not be altered to accommodate standard window sizes. f. Replacement windows should operate in the same fashion as the historic windows—double-hung windows should replace double-hung and casement should replace casement. g. True divided lights are appropriate for multi-pane sashes. The use of pop- in, sandwich or applied muntins is not appropriate. h.Avoid replacement of clear glass with tinted, reflective or frosted glass, particularly on primary elevations. i. The use of storm windows is acceptable and will help increase energy efficiency. Storm windows should be traditional fixed or removable wooden windows or aluminum `triple-tracks.' Interior storm windows may be an appropriate alternative in some situations. j. Storm windows should have minimal visual impact on the historic windows. Whether wood or metal, storm windows should match the existing sash color— avoid a bare metal finish. Storm windows should also have the same configuration as the historic windows. h. If storefront windows are to be replaced, use large sheets of clear glass. Blinds or curtains should be installed on the interior if the building use no longer necessitates display. 12. That the Commission has reviewed the applicant's revised proposal. The applicant was present at the April 8, 2024 meeting to address the Commission's on-going concerns about replacement of the windows. While the applicant's revised proposal has addressed some of those concerns, the Commission finds that the proposal to replace the existing windows still fails to satisfy the design guidelines. 13.That Section 152.08.020 of Ordinance No. 97-OR-20 states that"[t]he Commission, in considering the appropriateness of any reconstruction, alteration, maintenance or moving of an historic building or structure, or any part of or appurtenance to such building or structure...shall require such work be in a manner that will preserve the historical and architectural character of the building, structure or appurtenance."Ordinance No. 97-OR-20 further states the Commission shall consider, among other things,the following: (1) Purpose of this title; (2) Historical and architectural value and significance of the building, structure or appurtenance; (3) Compatibility and significance of additions, alterations, details, materials, or other non-original elements which may be of a different style and construction date that the original; (4)The texture, material, color, style and detailing of the building, structure or appurtenance; (5) The continued preservation and protection of original or otherwise significant structure, material and ornamentation; (6)The relationship of buildings, structures, appurtenances, or architectural features similar to the ones within the same historic district, including for primary areas, visual compatibility as defined in Section 8.08.040(b); and (7) The position of the building or structure in relation to the street, public right-of-way and to other buildings and structures. 14. That the Commission finds that it is important to maintain the original pane configuration on the side elevations. With an alley to the south of the building and a parking lot to the north, these side elevations are highly visible. 15. That the Commission finds that the proposed new windows on both the front and sides do not appear to replicate the existing framing pattern of the existing windows. Specifically, these windows have thinner horizontal elements (muntins) constrasting with the thicker vertical elements (mullions) separating the individual casement windows and the fixed windows above them. 16. That the Commission finds that based upon the drawings provided by the applicant, all of the framing elements would have a uniform 2" width. Therefore, the size of the window panes would also be uniform while the panes on the existing windows clearly vary on both the front and side elevations. 17. That the Commission finds that the pane design of the proposed windows are not consistent with the design standards,which state that windows that have deteriorated beyond repair should be replaced with new windows that match the original windows in proportion, pane configuration, materials, profiles, texture and colors. 18. That the Commission funds that the proposed windows would result in a significant visual alteration to the building. 19. That both Ordinance No. 97-OR-20 and the Commission's design standards are intended to ensure that proposed work in the district is done in a manner that preserves the architectural and historic character of the building. Both set forth a number of criteria for considering the effects of proposed work. 20. That the Commission finds that the building at 332 Spring Street is rated outstanding, which is the highest rating for buildings in the district and indicates that the building is eligible for individual listing in the National Register of Historic Places. 21. That the Commission finds that the building at 332 Spring Street has good integrity overall, and the applicant is seeking to permission to replace an original feature and important architectural element for the building. v 22. That the Commission finds that the positioning of the building at 332 Spring Street makes it very visible from the public rights-of-way. 23. That the Commission finds that the existing and original windows are repairable. 24. That the Commission finds that any replacement of windows shall adhere more to the design guidelines than the applicant's proposal based upon the building's outstanding contributing rating. 25. That the Commission finds that the proposed project would result in the loss of important original materials on a significant building in the district, and replacement with new materials would not be consistent with the design guidelines, particularly on the side elevations. 26. That the Commission hereby incorporates the application and staff reports filed herein along with any other documents filed with the Commission. 27. That the Commission hereby denies the application for Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the windows at the building located at 332 Spring Street. SO ENETERED by the Jeffersonville Historic Preservation Commission on this g-4-1, dayof Ac),,,-, 1 , 2024. r.,6),w))3 c )),..,. President Jeffersonville Historic Preservation Commission Attest: rl Secretly .1.621