Title
Consider/Discuss/Act on the Request by George Bush of Eldorado Properties to Appeal the Decision by the City of McKinney Historic Preservation Officer to Deny a Certificate of Appropriateness for the Proposed Installation of Four-over-Four Windows and Multi-pane Storefront Windows at 109 East Virginia Street.
Summary
MEETING DATE: November 16, 2010
DEPARTMENT: Development Services - Planning - Historic Preservation
CONTACT: Guy R. Giersch, Historic Preservation Officer
Kevin Spath, AICP, Senior Planner
RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
• Staff is recommending denial of the applicant’s appeal to install four-over-four windows in the second floor of the front façade and install multi-pane windows in the first floor storefront of the historic building at 109 East Virginia Street.
• Instead of the new four-over-four wood replacement windows proposed by the applicant in the second floor of the front façade, Staff is recommending the installation of one-over-one wood replacement windows.
• Instead of the new multi-pane windows proposed by the applicant for the first floor storefront, Staff is recommending retaining the existing clear, non-mulled plate glass windows.
ITEM SUMMARY:
• On October 20, 2010, the applicant submitted a proposal to the Historic Preservation Officer to remodel the façade of the historic building at 109 East Virginia Street. The applicant’s proposal included the following items:
1. Removing the circa 1960 corrugated metal cladding.
2. Installing a cornice treatment reminiscent of the original.
3. Creating ornamental window surrounds using EFIS.
4. Reconstructing the storefront using EFIS to create raised panel bulkheads and wood columns.
5. Installing a pair of wood doors with transom.
6. Painting the exterior of the building.
7. Installing a canvas barrel-vault awning.
8. Maintaining the terrazzo entry.
9. Replacing the metal windows on the second floor front façade with four-over-four wood windows with clear glass.
10. Replacing the clear, non-mulled, plate glass windows in the storefront with multi-pane mulled windows with low E clear glass.
• On October 28, 2010, the Historic Preservation Officer issued a Certificate of Appropriateness for items #1 through #8.
• The Historic Preservation Officer did not approve item #9 and item #10.
• For item #9, instead of the new four-over-four windows proposed by the applicant, Staff is recommending the installation of one-over-one wood replacement windows in the second floor of the front façade.
• For item #10, instead of the new multi-pane windows proposed by the applicant, Staff is recommending retaining the existing clear, non-mulled plate glass windows in the storefront.
• Staff has discussed these options with the applicant, but the applicant has not indicated any interest in these options. As such, the applicant is now requesting an appeal of the decision by the Historic Preservation Officer to deny a Certificate of Appropriateness for item #9 and item #10.
STAFF ASSESSMENT:
• Standard #3 of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings states:
“Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken.”
• ITEM #9: The applicant’s proposed use of four-over-four windows is not in keeping with Standard #3 of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. Based on the Standards, the windows should reflect the original one-over-one configuration based on the available historic photographic evidence. The applicant’s proposed use of four-over-four windows would create a false sense of historical development that would incrementally undermine the integrity and authenticity of the commercial historic district as recognized by the National Register of Historic Places.
• ITEM #10: The applicant’s proposed use of multi-pane windows in the storefront is not in keeping with Standard #3 of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. Introducing multi-pane storefront windows is not recommended because multi-pane storefront windows cannot be documented historically. Commercial buildings constructed in the late 19th century/early 20th century are characterized by progressively larger storefront display windows as plate glass became available in larger units. Based on physical and photographic evidence, the original storefront on this building would have had large plate glass windows similar to what the building has today. The applicant’s request to replace the existing non-mulled plate glass storefront windows with mulled multi-pane windows would create a false sense of historical development that would incrementally undermine the integrity and authenticity of the commercial historic district as recognized by the National Register of Historic Places.
• The building was constructed circa 1885 and shows evidence of having been significantly remodeled at least twice in the past. In the 1930’s, the façade was remodeled in an Art Deco style. The original pressed tin cornice was removed. Additionally, the original second floor wood windows were removed and replaced with metal windows. The window surrounds were removed, and the number of window openings was changed. Art glass was added above the transom windows and to either side of the storefront. The transoms were changed to prismatic glass, and the storefront was replaced using metal sash bars. The original brick was plastered and a terrazzo entry was installed.
• In the 1960’s, a metal exterior cladding was installed over the second story of the front facade. The original bulkheads that supported the plate glass storefront were replaced using brick. The 1960’s remodel covered over and severely damaged the 1930’s Art Deco remodel.
• The building is located in the historic downtown square proper. The square proper is a high-profile area for the City of McKinney. Buildings in the square proper contribute heavily to the historic character and charm on which the City of McKinney relies for community identity, economic development, and quality of life.
PRIORITY RATING:
• The property is listed as a low priority building in the 1982 Historic Resource Survey of the Central Business District. Low priority buildings contribute to the local history, but alterations have diminished the resource’s integrity. According to the 1982 Survey, the building was considered to be intrusive to the historic character of the central business district because of the metal false front that had been installed in the 1960’s. The 1982 Survey states that the building could be reclassified if the metal false front was removed and the building restored appropriately.
• To be clear, the applicant’s proposal to remodel the façade of the historic building at 109 East Virginia Street is an important opportunity to reverse the insensitive/intrusive alterations of the past and, once again, make the building a contributing structure in the commercial historic district. However, Staff’s concern is that approval of the applicant’s proposed item #9 and item #10 would result in additional insensitive alterations.
BACKGROUND:
• Criteria for COA Approval: Per Section 146-96(f)(3) of the CHD Commercial Historic District of the City of McKinney Zoning Ordinance: “All requests for a certificate of appropriateness within the CHD commercial historic district shall be approved by the historic preservation officer. The historic preservation officer shall follow the secretary of the interior’s standards for the rehabilitation of historic buildings in the consideration of all applications for a certificate of appropriateness within the CHD commercial historic district.”
• Appeals: Per Section 146-96(i)(3) of the CHD Commercial Historic District of the City of McKinney Zoning Ordinance: “Any person aggrieved by a decision of the historic preservation officer, relating to the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness, may, within ten working days of receipt of the written decision, file a written application with the planning department for review of the decision. The city council shall consider the application at the next available city council meeting.”