Historic Zoning Commission

N/A: Level III

6-E-09-HZ

Applicant Request

Level III. New construction of primary building(s) or deviation from guidelines

Review window mock-up PBA was authorized to execute for possible replacement windows (Certificate No. 40209GEN); determine if one or both of the mock-ups, with some modification, is an acceptable replacement window.

Site Info

Three story brick building with projecting clock/bell tower on north elevation. Hip roof with lower crossed gables and standing seam copper roof, patterned slate bell tower roof topped by weather vane. Raised basement with brick water table. Arched marble buttresses top rusticated marble ashlared side walls flank steps on north, east and west leading to projecting arcaded entry porches. Segmental arched vents at basement level enclosed with diagonal patterned iron grills with fleur d'lis design. Front porch with terra cotta balcony with pierced quatrefoils under arcaded porch. Black and white marble tiles and original bronze lights over each of the staircases lead to paired nine panel wood entry doors topped by arched transoms. One over one wood windows with arched small pane stained glass (red, blue and gold) throughout third floor and on bell/clock tower of building, with flat arched one over one wood windows on second floor. Rear addition (1919) on east and west elevations includes design features repeated from 1885 portion of building (marble belt and strong courses, marble sills and lintels at windows and doors) one over one double hung wood windows, with arched transoms with stained glass on top floor.

Two manufacturers are represented - Marvin and Eagle. Because tooling up to produce the windows is extremely expensive, each has brought a sample window, nearly but not exactly a copy of the replacement. My comments address the issues I thought prevented the windows from being exact enough to be approvable. You may have additional issues. Representatives of each manufacturer will be present to answer questions about whether the exact duplicates are possible in these materials.

Eagle:
1) The window stoops are too small and have obvious piecing.
2) The horizontal beaded molding that separates the window from the transom is not an accurate reproduction of any of the courthouse windows.
3) The lugs (shaped pieces at the bottom of the upper sash) are too small.
4) The top window sash rails on each side should run the length of the sash with the lugs a continuation of that line; the top and bottom rails should be butted into the top rail.
5) The muntins in the transom should be wider and deeper to reflect the dimension of the existing.
6) The pattern of separation in the transom should duplicate the original.
7) The hardware, including pulls and sash locks, should replicate the original in size and weight, and may be reused from the existing windows or may be new.

Marvin:
1) The window stoops are too small and have obvious piecing.
2) The horizontal beaded molding that separates the window from the transom is not an accurate reproduction of any of the courthouse windows.3
3) There is too obvious a line visually separating the lugs from the sash.
4) The top window sash rails on each side should run the length of the sash with the lugs a continuation of that line; the top and bottom rails should be butted into the top rail.
5) The muntins in the transom should be wider and deeper to reflect the dimension of the existing.

In addition, it should be determined whether the metal framed windows can be reused.