Angola commission approves window, lighting and paint work for 101 W. Maumee; awning material tabled

The Angola Historic Preservation Commission on Aug. 20 approved a certificate of appropriateness for most exterior renovations at 101 West Maumee Street, including replacement of three upper north-side windows, seven sconce lights, and repainting of soffits, trim and entrance posts. The commission tabled a final decision on the proposed composite shiplap awning material so commissioners could review physical samples.

Allison D'Agleau, city staff, presented the staff report and told the commission the project “does comply with applicable ordinances and guidelines outlined in the Angola Historic Preservation guidelines.” She recommended approval, saying the materials and paint colors are “preapproved materials and paint colors in the historic preservation guidelines.” A written request accompanying the application asked for $10,000 from the city’s facade grant program toward an estimated $25,000 total project cost.

The commission’s discussion focused on two technical questions: whether the proposed replacement windows and the composite shiplap siding matched materials previously approved for the building, and whether the awning work could affect the building’s structure. Wade (applicant) confirmed the new windows would be “the same ones we did last year that was approved,” and that the awning’s curved top would be filled in because it was deteriorated. Commissioners asked for clarity on how the new windows would be set into the existing trim and whether the awning backing or framing would be disturbed during installation.

Commissioner Hope pressed for specifics about the siding and asked whether the proposed product was vinyl, a wood composite or fiber cement. Allison D'Agleau read the relevant sections of the Angola guidelines aloud, citing windows (replacement matching size, shape and operation), walls (allowing certain composite materials in high-moisture contact locations), painting (preapproved palettes), and awnings/lighting (LED lighting and noninvasive mounting). Commissioners noted that state guidance and reviews by Indiana Landmarks have changed over time; staff said the city will review its guidelines this winter to ensure alignment with state standards.

After further discussion, a commissioner moved to split the certificate of appropriateness: approve the window replacements, lighting, painting and related trim work now, and table the awning material decision until physical samples of the composite are provided. The motion included a direction that staff confirm the window installation matches the installation previously approved on the building’s east elevation. The motion passed by majority vote; one commissioner recorded opposition on the record. The transcript did not record a roll-call tally by name.

Commission staff said they will collect samples from the vendor (Slat Solution or similar suppliers were discussed) and distribute them to commissioners. Staff also noted that a separate city building permit will be required for any structural work related to the awning and that the commission’s approval applies only to the facade treatment.

Why it matters: The project involves a prominent downtown commercial building and is funded in part by a local facade grant. Commissioners balanced preservation guidance with practical considerations about material durability and cost; they approved the work that most directly affects the building’s appearance while postponing a decision that hinges on product quality and installation details.

What happens next: The applicant may begin work on the approved window, lighting and paint elements once administrative steps are completed and any required city permits are obtained. Staff will schedule a follow-up or special meeting to consider the awning material after commissioners have examined physical samples.

Votes at a glance: Motion to split the COA — approve window replacement, lighting, painting and related work; table decision on awning material pending samples. Motion outcome: approved by majority; one commissioner opposed. (The transcript does not record a full roll-call tally or named mover/second.)