Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHistoric Preservation Commission October 21, 2024 Historic Preservation Commission MINUTES October 21, 2024 President Ed Siewert called to order the October 21,2024 Historic Preservation Commission meeting at 5:33 p.m. in the Building Commission Conference Room at City Hall, 500 Quartermaster Court. Roll Call Members present were Johnna Anderson,Jourdan Ford, and Lisa Green. Member absent was Maggie Moore. Also,present Laura Renwick,Historic Preservation staff advisor and Administrative Assistant Shane Shaughnessy. Approval of the Agenda Jourdan Ford made a motion to approve the agenda for the October 21,2024 regular meeting, seconded by Lisa Green and approved unanimously,4-0. Jason Schlatter and Paul Torp entered the meeting at 5:35 following the approval of the agenda. Approval of Previous Minutes Johnna Anderson made a motion to approve the August 12, 2024 minutes, seconded by Lisa Green, and approved unanimously, 6-0. Certificates of Appropriateness 319 Spring Street A Certificate of Appropriateness application was filed for 319 Spring Street by Aaron and Rachel Stumler.Present at the meeting for this application were Aaron and Rachel Stumler and Jameson Bledsoe. Ed Siewert introduced the case and invited the applicants to present their project to the Commission. Aaron Stumler stated that they were wanting to clean up the building by bricking in a first floor door,clean up stairwells,paint unpainted brick,repaint siding,replace some siding on the upper floor with hardie lap siding and replace windows on the building. Lisa Green asked if the windows would be the same design as they are currently. Aaron responded that they would be one-over-one windows as they currently are. Aaron stated that there would also be some joint and brick repair done to the building to fix gaps and deterioration. He stated that the front overhang over the storefront window would be replaced with a standing-seam metal overhang. The glass on the storefront would be replaced and a black frame placed around it. 1 Paul Torp asked if the storefront,doors, and upstairs windows would be new. The applicants stated the storefront and doors would be new and that they were hoping to keep the existing upstairs windows. Lisa Green asked if the apartments upstairs were currently occupied. Aaron stated there was one apartment that is currently occupied and one apartment was being used for storage. Paul Torp asked what the future use of the building would be. The applicants stated they have a client from Louisville who would bring in a high-quality countertop showroom to the storefront and that the upstairs would be gutted to create a 10-12 person, 2200 square foot short term rental. Aaron stated the decking and railing were in poor condition and that those elements would have to be replaced. They are also looking to add a gate to block off the lower entrances to the upstairs stairwells and place a keypad on it to restrict access. Jason Schlatter asked what the materials of the proposed windows would be. The applicants stated the windows would be made from a Fibrex material. Paul Torp asked if the applicants have an architect that could provide renderings or elevations of the building to help visualize what is being proposed. Laura Renwick stated that as is shown in the staff comments,painting unpainted brick is generally discouraged and that it would be helpful to see how it would all be tied together. Paul stated he would like to see a proposed color scheme for the building because of the bevy of different materials that make up the building and encouraged the applicants to provide alternate elevations showing what it would look like with painted brick versus unpainted brick. Rachel Stumler stated they own a design business and that providing visuals shouldn't be a problem. She also stated that the current color of the brick was a no-go for a potential tenant they were speaking to and they want to make the building look as nice and high-end as possible. Aaron Stumler stated they'd like to keep the location of the existing signage and addressing for the new client. Paul Torp stated that other locations along Spring Street have black canvas awnings and that there may be some kind of a trend that was being started along the street. The applicants stated they looked into a canvas awning and that they had concerns regarding maintenance and that the existing awning was built into the building and removal would be difficult. Laura asked if the proposed metal awning would be open underneath. Aaron stated that underneath of the awning would be closed and encased. Lisa Green asked if the proposed short-term rental would be allowed. Shane stated that City Council is currently debating an ordinance regulated short-term rentals and that if passed,they would likely need to register their property but that it would be allowed. Rachel stated that it was also possible for them to keep the existing 5 apartments upstairs and continue to rent them out. Paul Torp stated that the examples of the railings were a little vague and asked that elevations would also show more detail. Lisa Green made a motion to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness with the condition that Laura be provided with details on colors,railing, and proposed elevations of the project. Jourdan Ford seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously,6-0. 2 523 Spring Street A Certificate of Appropriateness application was filed for 523 Spring Street by Heuser Hardware Co.Present at the meeting for this application were Thomas and William Densford. Ed Siewert introduced the case and invited the applicants to present their project to the Commission.Thomas Densford stated they were wanting to replace the windows facing Kentucky Avenue on the backside of the building. The windows had been boarded up for a long time and they were wanting to replace them with double hung windows similar to what was done on the front side of the building. One window and the adjoining door have transoms and they are requesting to add a transom to the third window to make them look the same. The window AC unit would also be removed. Paul Torp asked why the windows on the front of the building did not have muntins on them. Laura stated the windows that were replaced in 2017 were pseudo-one-over-ones and that they weren't original. The applicants stated the windows on the front were vinyl,clad in aluminum and that they were wanting to replace the rear windows with the same style,without muntins and painted in the same color. Paul asked if the windows in question were original to the building. Laura stated they probably were,though the age of the building makes if difficult to say for certain. Ed Siewert asked if the wood frames would be taken out and down to the brick. Thomas stated they were starting to rot and that they'd like to replace them with vinyl windows as they are more energy efficient. Lisa asked if aluminum-clad vinyl is the only way they could do that. Thomas replied that they're trying to match the front of the building. Jason asked Laura if there was information about why the vinyl windows were approved in 2017. Laura stated they were presented as clad wood windows at that meeting at there may have been a misunderstanding of what was proposed. Thomas stated that the neighbors also installed vinyl windows around the same time. Paul stated that he isn't crazy about the front windows and even if they were approved,there ought to be a historic look to the windows in question with a six-over-six style. He acknowledged that full,divided light windows start to get expensive. He stated that there are windows that a snap-on grid could be placed on the inside and outside to mimic the look of a truly divided window and would prefer that gridded pattern to be placed on the windows, even if the windows were vinyl or of a different color. The applicant stated it wouldn't be a big deal to apply muntin bars to the window. Ed stated he thought that was a good compromise because what was proposed doesn't meet the standards but the proposed windows are the same as the front windows. Lisa stated that she thinks the windows look better without the transoms and in a six-over-six style. Thomas stated they are also planning on taking the wood off above the door and recreating a transom there. Paul asked if they're putting the transoms in because of cost because the larger windows would look better. The applicants stated the transoms would make the windows and door look similar and that it was less about the cost. Paul stated the six-over-six windows would be 3 more appropriate with larger,more traditional window than adding a transom and that it would look more in the style of the 1930's and asked if they could do that. The applicants stated it was possible if additional fmances were available. Lisa stated there is Storefront Improvement money through Jeffersonville Main Street that is available and encouraged the applicants to apply for it. Jason made a motion to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the windows and door as submitted but without the transoms above the windows and with muntins added to create a pane pattern. Lisa seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously,6-0. Paul sought clarification about the nature of the muntins stating that they wouldn't be all the way through the glass but would be applied to the outside and inside of the window which would give depth to the window. The applicants stated they would prefer muntins that were located between the double paned glass and had concerns about placing them on the outside of the window due to the likelihood of them warping in the direct sunlight. Jason stated that he was worried that imposing such a guideline to a building that already had vinyl windows approved would create a maintenance issue for the owners. Paul said he could see where that would create a hardship and was fine with the muntins be applied on the interior of the windows. Other Business Ed brought up the window guidelines that had been compiled by Laura at a previous meeting. He stated of all of the different standards,he thought Jeffersonville's were formatted in the clearest manner and that if anything was going to be changed in those standards,he would like to keep the same format. Jason stated he has also looked through the guidelines and had marked them up and said there were new technologies that the current guidelines don't clearly address and that there could be room for such clarification. Paul suggested that the discussion be tabled until next meeting so that everyone could bring their notes and have a broader discussion about the guidelines at that time. Ed stated that the current guidelines give the board leeway to help make suggestions similar to the previous discussion and assist in all parties meeting in the middle. Laura stated she'd resend the guidelines to the Commission Laura brought up the news of the Census Bureau's departure from Jeffersonville and suggested it should be something on the Commission's radar. She said that the Commission should assist City officials in advocating for the redevelopment of the site,particularly the large building that faces 10th Street. Laura said they had the ability to designate certain structures as historic. Lisa said that she thought the quote from the Mayor in the paper sounded like he was interested in protecting the building.Johnna said that she knew the City was interested in the site but was unsure of the details regarding the specific building but doubted the City would be in favor of removing that building. Jason Schlatter made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Lisa Green. The meeting was adjourned at 6:23pm. Next scheduled meeting will be Nov er 11 024. Minutes Approved: Submitted by: 4