Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Commercial Buildings Restoration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission approves facade restoration plan for 11–12 East Washington (Crischell Building) with review for ADA access
Summary
The Brownsville Heritage Preservation Commission approved staff recommendations for the Crischell Building at 11–12 East Washington, endorsing preservation of brick lintels, a recessed storefront entry and transom windows, and requesting that code review address elevator/ADA access for second-floor use.
Brownsville’s Heritage Preservation Commission approved staff recommendations for rehabilitation of the early-20th-century building at 11–12 East Washington, known in staff materials as the Crischell Building, including preserving existing brick lintels and restoring a recessed storefront with display windows and transom lights.
Staff presented historic photos and elevations showing the building’s Italianate character and recommended preserving the brick lintels and restoring transom windows rather than installing the proposed blind transom treatment. Staff also recommended fiber-cement panels only for lower storefront areas if wood is not feasible, and preservation of the second-floor entry door and single-hung windows where possible.
Commissioners asked about second-floor use and accessibility. Staff said the second floor is proposed for a small gathering/bar space with an independent entry and that an elevator may be required if code and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) provisions make it necessary. A commissioner noted that code review during permitting should identify and require an elevator if ADA rules apply.
The staff recommendation requires the owner to request building and COA permits and to follow recommended storefront and window treatments shown in the historic photographs. The city’s code review process will address structural and accessibility requirements during permit review. The motion to approve staff recommendations passed by voice vote.
The owner was not present at the hearing; staff indicated they would inspect behind the existing Indian Palace sign to confirm lost decorative details once the sign is removed.
