Historic commission denies front-vinyl windows, approves rear screens for 615 Southeast Riverside

Gail Cummings, who identified herself as a representative for the owners of 615 Southeast Riverside Drive, asked the Evansville Historic Preservation Commission on Dec. 11 to approve replacement windows that she said would let the family finish a lengthy renovation and remove a nonhistoric front office addition. Cummings told the commission she has spent more than $156,000 on the project and that choosing vinyl windows for the front could save roughly $20,000 and free funds to restore the original wraparound porch.

The commission considered three Certificate of Approval items tied to the property. After discussion, the panel took no formal action on item 5 (a motion to install two vinyl windows on the rear), unanimously approved item 6 (installation of full screens on two rear windows to match existing), and recorded a failure on item 7 (installation of front windows as proposed).

Why it matters: The decision keeps in place the commission’s standard of reviewing materials and visual appropriateness for homes in the Riverside historic district and means the applicant cannot rely on approval of front vinyl windows to fund removal of the nonhistoric front office. Commissioners repeatedly urged the applicant to bring specific product samples and construction details — not just generic descriptions — before any future vote.

What commissioners and the applicant said: Cummings described the house as a multi-year renovation that has encountered contractor failures and theft and said, “so far, we have spent over $156,000,” and that wood windows were substantially more expensive than vinyl. The presiding commissioner read the commission’s cost comparisons into the record, noting a vinyl window could cost about $1,000 while some custom wood windows the applicant cited were estimated at $3,500.

Several commissioners emphasized preserving historic material and appearance. One commissioner told the applicant, “I will never approve vinyl windows for the front, in particular, of this house,” and multiple members recommended a phased approach to minimize visual mismatch and preserve historic character. Counsel and commissioners noted prior COA approvals expire after a year and that, because the current application is new and this commission includes new members, the applicant should supply either the original COA materials (if still valid) or fresh samples and construction details for the window products under consideration.

Votes and motions: A motion to approve item 5 (two rear vinyl windows) was moved and seconded; roll-call responses recorded Commissioner Stephanie: Nay; Commissioner Pam: Nay; Commissioner Philip: Yay; presiding commissioner: Nay, and counsel later advised this constituted no action because four affirmative votes are required for approval. Item 6 (full screens on two rear windows) was moved, seconded and approved by a 4–0 roll-call vote. For item 7 (front windows), the presiding commissioner summarized the outcome as four nays; commissioners suggested the applicant return with samples, specifications or a phased COA if she desired further consideration.

What’s next: The applicant was invited to return at a later hearing with product samples and detailed specifications — such as dimensioning, muntin profiles, and a sample cutaway showing construction — or to present a phased plan for window replacement and porch restoration. The commission noted building permits and COA approvals typically expire after a year and extensions are available.

Context: Commissioners repeatedly cited the preservation guidelines’ preference for like-for-like materials and visual appropriateness in the Riverside Historic District. The discussion included mention of wood-clad options such as Renewal by Andersen’s Fibrex material and the need for tangible samples so commissioners can evaluate both visual detail and how elements are assembled.

The commission adjourned after completing the item and moving to other business.