Title
Consider/Discuss/Act on a Request by Alicia Tomlin on behalf of Preston Lancaster for a Certificate of Appropriateness Application for the Proposed Rehabilitation of 308 W. Virginia Street.
Summary
COUNCIL GOAL: Enhance the Quality of Life in Downtown McKinney
MEETING DATE: January 5, 2023
DEPARTMENT: Planning Department - Development Services
CONTACT: Cassie Bumgarner, Historic Preservation Planner
Paula Jarrett Nasta, AIA, Planning Manager
RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION:
• Staff recommends denial of the Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) due to the fact that the proposed rehabilitation to this high priority building does not meet Standards 2, 4, 5, 9, and 10 of the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for Rehabilitation.
ITEM SUMMARY:
• The applicant submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) application on December 16, 2022, for rehabilitation of the commercial building at 308 W. Virginia Street.
• The 2015 Historic Resource Survey lists the 308 W. Virginia property as high priority with a construction date circa 1930.
o The building was constructed by at least 1947 at which time the building was the A & P Supermarket.
o The 1960 update to the Sanborn Fire Insurance map shows a building of this shape, size, and location on this block.
o Despite modernizations, painting, and interior renovations, the form, shape, location, and setting have remained constant since the at least the 1960 Sanborn Fire Insurance assessment.
• The existing building has a simplified minimalist façade with large glass showcase windows along the primary façade.
• The proposed rehabilitation includes:
o removal of the existing southeast corner of the building,
o cutting new openings into the east and west elevations,
o infilling historic openings along the east elevation,
o adding a rear addition,
o adding a transom above the awning, and
o changing size and rhythm of the storefront.
• A separate pergola, proposed for the east side of the building has been approved under a separate COA (HP2022-126). The placement and installation of that pergola is in keeping with the standards as it is a readily reversible new construction that would not damage the integrity of the building and site.
ASSESMENT:
• In staff’s professional judgement the proposed design for rehabilitation is not in keeping with the spirit of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings standards 2,4,9, & 10.
• Standard 2 states: “The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided.”
o The proposed design removes the existing southeast corner of the building replacing it with a glass, aluminum, and steel tower. This results in the loss of the brick corner column, the deep upper band of brick to the west of the removed column, and one storefront section.
o The proposed design changes the windows from large single pane glass to multi-pane glass.
o The size of the windows along the front façade are reduced in width.
o The main entrance is relocated from the center of the building to the southeast corner.
o Transom windows are proposed above the existing awning.
o The bay doors along the east façade are being enclosed and new doors added to the south of these openings. The proposed metal green wall screens are not in the dimensions or locations of the existing bay doors.
o The windows proposed for the west elevation are both different in size and in location from the existing infilled window openings.
• Standard 4 states: “Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved.”
o The proposed design eliminates the metal slipcovers over the front façade that have been in place for the last 40 years.
• Standard 5 states: “Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved.”
o Transom windows are proposed above the existing awning. This alters an existing character defining feature of this building. The position of the awning above the windows with no glass above has been a distinct feature of this property for at least 40 years.
• Standard 9 states: “New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.”
o The proposed design destroys historic materials in removing the existing southeast corner of the building to replace it with a glass, aluminum, and steel tower. This results in the loss of the brick corner column and the deep upper band of brick to the west of the removed column.
o The bay doors along the east façade are being enclosed and new doors added to the south of these openings. The proposed metal green screens are not in the dimensions or locations of the existing bay doors.
o The windows proposed for the west elevation are both different in size and in location from the existing infilled window openings.
o The new work, as proposed, will be differentiated from the old.
• Standard 10 states: “New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.”
o The new tower, as presented in these elevations and plans, impairs the integrity of the historic property by removing a significant portion of the primary façade.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
• This property is located within the residential area of the historic preservation overlay district (HOD).
• Per the ordinance, Staff may forward a COA application to the Historic Preservation Advisory Board (HPAB) for review.
• The HPO may approve or approve with conditions a COA within the residential area of the HOD but the HPAB may approve, approve with conditions, or deny an COA application. When a COA application cannot be readily approved under the approval criteria set forth in the ordinance, we forward the application to the HPAB.
• The building has a pending site plan application for the new use, and new site design. (SITE2021-041).