Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation Windows topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Evansville preservation commission continues window replacement request to allow sample and details
Summary
The Historic Preservation Commission continued Phil Lieberman’s application to replace non-street-facing windows on a Southeast Riverside Drive condo, asking the applicant to provide a physical sample and additional muntin/cross‑section details; the hearing was continued to Sept. 10 with the applicant’s consent.
Phil Lieberman, an applicant and resident of 510 Southeast Riverside Drive, Apartment A, asked the Evansville Historic Preservation Commission on an application to replace nine windows on the southeast side of his four‑story brick condominium building. Lieberman told the commission he was seeking to replace most of the windows on that elevation with Pella aluminum‑clad, double‑pane units and said two windows on the elevation are stained‑glass “art windows” that he would not replace.
The commission’s historic preservation officer, Timothy (last name not specified in the record), reviewed the commission’s standards: replacement windows on secondary elevations with limited visibility must match historic windows in size, configuration and general characteristics but substitute materials may be considered in some cases. Commissioners asked for more architectural detail on the proposed simulated muntins and a cross‑section showing the shape and depth of the muntins so the commission can have a clear record of what would be installed.
Commissioner Hooper said the application’s submitted graphics were “incredibly unclear” on muntin detail and recommended a physical sample be provided. Commissioner Hooper and other commissioners also asked for clearer documentation of the current windows’ condition and raised the point that repair is sometimes feasible even if it is difficult.
Lieberman argued the barred/aluminum‑clad appearance would be visually consistent from the public way and noted the windows in question face away from the street and are more than 60 feet from the sidewalk, saying pedestrians would not be able to tell the material at that distance. He also said he had consulted multiple local vendors and that Pella was one of several manufacturers he had considered.
After discussion, a commissioner moved to continue the certificate of appropriateness hearing for application 25 HP COA‑03510 so the applicant could present a physical sample and provide more detailed muntin cross‑section information. Lieberman explicitly consented to the continuance. The commission voted to continue the hearing to Sept. 10; the motion passed and the item was rescheduled.
The hearing record includes background references to previous window disputes on nearby units, including earlier unauthorized replacements on front‑facing windows that resulted in a penalty and subsequent legal action, which commissioners cited while distinguishing front‑facing and side‑facing elevations.
The commission did not take final action on the certificate of appropriateness; instead it required the applicant to provide the requested sample and detailed drawings before a decision.
All substantive questions and requests for clarification recorded in the hearing — including the applicant’s vendor contacts, the number and locations of windows, and the commission’s request for a physical sample and detailed muntin cross section — are recorded in the file and will be considered at the continued hearing on Sept. 10.
