Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Exterior Painting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Owner directed to return East Main storefront panels to historic light finish after DRC questions paint change
Summary
The DRC advised the owner of 98 East Main Street to repaint metal facade panels back to the lighter enamel color used historically, after staff reviewed aerial photographs and district research showing the property historically read as a light‑colored service station.
Tyler Ichiyan, representing the property owner, explained he had painted panels on the storefront building at 98 East Main Street after prior alterations and said he was seeking guidance to resolve a notice of violation. He said he had previously applied for a Certificate of Appropriateness and had been denied, and that his intention for the current submittal was to return metal panels that staff and the DRC considered historic to a lighter, historic color.
Staff told the committee the building is in the local Downtown Historic District and that archival photos (1963 aerial, later 1967 directory) and prior research indicate the site historically read as a lighter‑colored, enamel‑coated service station. Staff advised that historically enamel/porcelain coated metal panels on service‑station buildings are best maintained and repainted in colors compatible with the building’s era; the Secretary of the Interior standards and the 2016 guidelines both recommend preserving historic metal finishes where possible and avoiding finishes or coatings that change a feature's historic material character.
Committee members said the site is a sensitive gateway into the district and that the darker modern black/gray treatment made the building read as a contemporary object rather than a 20th‑century service station. Several commissioners asked the owner to return the metal panels to a lighter white/blue combination consistent with historic images; Madeline asked staff and the applicant to confirm which white was the correct match and whether any of the metal panels were porcelain‑enamel originals or later replacement panels.
The owner said the blue‑and‑white scheme had been used previously on site and supplied photographs from earlier work; staff recommended repainting with an appropriate enamel‑type paint and cautioned against sandblasting to remove historic coatings. The committee asked the applicant to confer with staff on exact color chips and to submit the chosen paint color as part of the voting submittal to resolve the violation.
Why it matters: The building sits at an entry to Franklin’s historic district; the DRC emphasized that retention or restoration of the historic light enamel finish better preserves the district’s architectural narrative than a dark contemporary repaint.
Next steps: Applicant to coordinate with staff on specific historic color match and submit the paint specification for review; DRC staff declared the proposed light repaint a path to resolving the notice of violation.
