Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Storefront Renovation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Owners of Vanity Salon present storefront facelift at 1113 S. Fort Thomas Ave.; board prefers engineered wood samples over vinyl
Summary
Vanity Salon owners proposed replacing deteriorated siding with board-and-batten material, adding three exterior sconces, a flower box, and a hanging sign. Board members recommended engineered wood (LP SmartSide) or higher-quality options and encouraged applicants to consider Grow grant funding; no formal vote recorded in the transcript.
Owners of Vanity Salon described plans to renovate the storefront at 1113 South Fort Thomas Avenue and received guidance from the Design Review Board on materials and streetscape details.
Applicants Nikki Stefan and Nicole identified themselves as the owners and said the existing wood siding is in poor condition and difficult to maintain. They proposed replacing the lower-level siding with a board-and-batten product (applicants provided a sample) and painting the upper areas a lighter neutral "mocha" color. The applicants also proposed adding three black exterior sconces, a wooden (white) flower box under the primary display window and a small hanging metal sign that would clear the sidewalk by more than 7 feet.
Board members and staff discussed material options. Staff and board members raised concerns about vinyl cladding in the district: the board referenced the design guidelines language that cautions about synthetic siding and trim products and suggested that an engineered wood product such as LP SmartSide or similar would be more compatible in texture and character. One board member said, "Personally, I think that's much more similar in character to the district than the vinyl." Staff noted the building is designated noncontributing, which provides somewhat greater flexibility, but emphasized that proposed work should still respect district character. The board also suggested adding more trim detail around windows and doors, if feasible, and discussed Grow grant funding as a possible way to fund higher-quality improvements; staff said applications for the program are awarded in advance and pointed applicants to the application timeline.
Technical details discussed during the review included the soffit height (measured at about 107 inches from the sidewalk), the large display window width (applicants referenced a 6–7 foot window), and the proposed sign clearance (applicants said the sign bottom would remain higher than 7 feet). Staff encouraged applicants to provide final material and color samples. The transcript does not record a formal motion or vote approving or denying the application during the provided portion of the meeting.
Applicants said improvements would make the building look substantially better and hoped to move forward after incorporating feedback. Staff suggested applicants consider grant funding for an enhanced streetscape approach and to submit final samples for staff and board review.
Ending: Applicants were asked to provide final material and color samples and to consider whether Grow grant application funding could support a more detailed streetscape approach; no final decision is recorded in the transcript.
