Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Design Review approves two‑building infill at 273 Washington Ave after historic‑preservation concerns
Summary
The Evansville committee approved a two‑building infill proposal at 273 Washington Ave in the Arts District after discussing compatibility with the Washington Avenue Historic District and preservation of an on‑site limestone retaining wall; resident concerns were noted and committee requested sensitivity to materials.
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Evansville Design Review Committee on Aug. 13 approved a conceptual two‑building infill proposal for 273 Washington Avenue in the Arts District, following discussion of design compatibility with the Washington Avenue Historic District and a flag to preserve a notable limestone retaining wall.
Nathan Mominee, the project's developer, said he has built multiple projects in the Arts District and presented materials and a facade approach similar to prior infill projects. Pete Emery, a resident at 219 Washington whose 165‑year‑old house is part of the Washington Avenue Historic District on the National Register, said the proposed modern design "is so different than the typical architecture in that historic district" and urged the committee to protect the district's remaining historic features.
Timothy Miller, Evansville's Historic Preservation Officer, said there are no protective covenants that legally forbid new construction in the district but cautioned against creating faux historic elements; he specifically flagged a limestone retaining wall on the site that is unique and should be preserved. Miller and the applicant discussed an opening in the wall that previously accessed the house and noted that salvaged limestone was being reused at Sunset Park.
After questions about sidewalks, lot coverage and garage configuration were answered, a committee member moved to vote and the committee approved the application by voice vote; one committee member voiced opposition when asked for opposed, but the motion carried. The applicant was told staff would provide the signed paperwork after the meeting.
