Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHistoric Preservation Commission July 8, 2024 Historic Preservation Commission MINUTES July 8, 2024 President Ed Siewert called to order the July 8, 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, Paul Torp, and Jason Schlatter. Members absent Jourdan Ford, Lisa Green, and Maggie Moore. Also, present Laura Renwick, Historic Preservation staff advisor, Les Merkley City of Jeffersonville attorney, and Administrative Assistant Mary Frey. Guest, Attorney, Alan Applegate, Jason Sams, Dylan Applegate, Council members, Bill Burns, Scott Hawkins, Evan Stoner, and Dustin White, Agenda Jason Schlatter motioned to approve the July 8, 2024 agenda, seconded by Paul Torp and approved unanimously. Minutes Johnna Anderson made a motion to approve the Monday,June 10, 2023 minutes, seconded by Jason Schlatter, and approved unanimously. Certificate of Appropriateness Alan Applegate, appeared before the board, representing ARC 332 LLC, requesting a certificate of economic hardship for replacement windows at 332 Spring Street. Alan Applegate believes this is the fourth time appearing before the board requesting the windows. At the first presentation, the board requested that ARC obtain quotes on the restoration/repair of the existing windows. Two quotes for repairs were presented at the June 2024 meeting,both which were approximately$ 450,000.00. Staff reports indicate that the repair is too expensive and steel windows are not affordable. The owners cannot use the property in its current condition due to the windows leaking. The owners do have other options, like adding storm windows. The owners are attempting to allow the building to be usable. As the building sets with leaking windows ARC cannot make viable use of the property or make a reasonable return. Alan Applegate stated that the building was purchased at market value and that Alan Muncy has shown he develops nice projects in the Jeffersonville Historic District and surrounding area. Per ordinance 97-OR-20, section 152.08.030 (maintenance standards), ARC does not believe that the proposed window replacement creates a conspicuous change. Alan Applegate and his client believe the hardship request is fair, and the board should approve it. Les Merkley questioned if the window is with the changed mullions and if the design guidelines are being met with the replacement windows. The Board can take action on economic hardship if the applicant can prove an economic impact and the property owner's regulatory use prevents all reasonable use of the building. "Les noted that the courts- including the U.S. Supreme Court -have upheld the authority of Preservation Commissions to regulate alterations,provided that the property owner is not denied all reasonable return on investment. "The burden is on the applicant to prove economic impact. An issue: the applicant would need to adhere to the ordinance design standard for replacement windows and the burden is on the applicant to prove an economic impact. Regulatory use prevents all reasonable use of the building including rehab. Enforcement is if design replacement interferes with how much it is for replacement windows that follow the guidelines. Previously in US Supreme court, investment expects developers and owners have a responsibility to know Historic Preservation Commission MINUTES July 8, 2024 ordinances. The ordinance does not define hardship. A measure of economic return is an issue when it deprives use of a property and the commission should consider definition is similar. If not rehabbing windows-waive the evidence for window replacement makes for a reasonable return. Standards go so far, and the burden is on the applicant. Alan Applegate stated replacement quotes with steel frame, replacement layover mullions have to be specially fabricated. Laura Renwick pointed out the number of pane difference is sixteen current to the eight presented. Paul Torp: first presentation was denied on the recommendation to repair notable components, and if not feasible replace the windows with like windows as outlined in the guidelines. We are right back where we started. Jason Schlatter: historic guidelines are based on what is written and over the last 30 years with the evolution of windows-replacing windows should be taken out of the guidelines—Jason feels this is not applicable. Presented at the first meeting were 2 x 4 windows, a storefront-like curtain wall for replacement. The guidelines stated no aluminum, windows had no mullions or muttons, and no member has agreed with what has been presented. Would the board be ok with aluminum, does not match historically. Guidelines do not address whether it is rational enough with the issue at hand to replace with guidelines. There are Companies that replicate; the 2 x 4 storefront windows do not meet guidelines. All these companies make aluminum replacement windows, St. Cloud and SWC. This is important and will set a precedent- do we replace wood with bricks, we could have a hardship on all historic buildings. I am not questioning the price as I have quotes for windows come across my desk all the time. I understand what windows cost, so if we allow a window to be a hardship then take it out of the ordinance. Are we changing the guidelines, what is the next hardship? Les Merkely: it is not an economic hardship if it has a reasonable return, and the only evidence you have before you is the $ 432,310.00 quote from KPG- does that make an unreasonable return and is an accurate number to apply with the standards presented. Alan Applegate: state statue, design standards, and primary reconstruction must be visually compatible with height and width proportions, it does not say they have to be exact. Point is guidelines may be broader than the adopted guidelines, it is a policy decision by the commission. Les Merkley: at some point regulatory takes when you diminish the flow of the building. The building was purchased without an appraisal. The applicant and his attorney are stating that without installing the windows the building cannot be rented. Paul: I am new and I wonder does the commission making a decision on an economic hardship, talk about valueand what is a conspicuous change. Paul disagrees with replacing windows with what is being presented. Paul believes owner should replace windows with like windows. Paul does not feel like the board should evaluate a hardship and that additional bids should be obtained. If decision is made today, it should be within the guidelines. Historic Preservation Commission MINUTES July 8, 2024 Jason Sams: the approximated $ 450, 000.00 estimate on window repair does not include interior work that goes along with window replacement such as drywall. The market will not carry the cost of replacing windows. Jason Schlatter: We are an appointed board, we do a public service and have guidelines to follow. Neighboring businesses have replaced windows and followed the guidelines. Why does Jeff have an ordinance, If 2 x 4 aluminum is the only window applicable for economic reasons. Dustin White: The windows, presented look like the windows in Ramiros. Jason Schlatter: Ramiros already had windows, if a private investor is to do business we maintain the actual provision of the ordinance. Les Merkely: the only evidence you have in front of you is the $ 432,000.00 quote for window replacement to replicate the current windows, and if this ends up in litigation, no economic hardship is about an estimate, you have a bid in front you. Ed Siewert: are there quotes for windows that match the existing windows? Dylan Applegate: originally like windows would be as much to replace as to restore, I have contacted companies with no response and the quote presented is the one that has been provided to me. Alan Applegate: My son Dylan works for ARC. Paul Torp: Due diligence should have been done before you purchased the property. Jason Sams: We knew the building was in the historic district. Paul Torp: what numbers did you put in for windows? Jason Sams: We put in numbers for windows that have been presented. Jason Schlatter: the Board does not set the ratings on buildings, however, this building is rated, the original windows are there and the guidelines are there. Jason Schlatter: with the Boards recommended windows and the presented quote, I do not see how the Board can recommend them. Laura Renwick: If multiple quotes are received, I would agree. The difference in the windows being presented are the pane configuration. The current windows have sixteen and the ones presented have eight. Dustin White: The Board can make a decision, and the legal basis could go either way based on the Boards ability to make a decision. I am asking the Board to approve the windows so ARC can get moving forward. Les Merkley: do you want two more quotes? Historic Preservation Commission MINUTES July 8, 2024 Paul Torp: The windows on Spring Street do not apply. Dustin White: It does apply. Jason Schlatter: I would like to make a motion with contingencies, get two more quotes and if the additional quotes are in this price range with the mullions and muntins replicated, that is presented, then I approve the presented windows. ARC will submit two additional proposals. If the proposals presented at the next meeting are in the price range of what is being submitted today, than the presented windows would be approved. Paul Torp: is that motion based on the most recent drawing or the current? Jason Schlatter: as presented Paul Torp: if ARC provides two more quotes, who is going to make the decision that they meet the standards? Les Merkley: The option could be table the application today and have a special meeting or make a decision on what you have in front of you today. Jason Schlatter: feels the design standards are outdated because of the advancement of windows. Ed Siewert: We have a motion on the table, Johnna Anderson 2nd the motion, and the motion passed 3 to 1. Paul Torp made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Jason Schlatter. Next scheduled meetingg �wiillbe Au: st 12 2024. I ) le' Minutes Approved: / Submitted by: 'Yn owi.K