Owners of the two-story McNally Cottage on Main Street (center) would like to demolish the late 19th century home and build a three-story hotel in its place. More than 100 years old, the cross-gabled house is a contributing building to the Island's National Historic Landmark status. The proposed demolition of McNally Cottage and the construction of a three-story hotel and retail complex in its place meets zoning requirements, although it may not meet all architectural review standards, say Mackinac Island planning commissioners, who tabled the issue last week until they have more time to review the request for the zoning application. They plan to take action on it at their next meeting, Tuesday, October 13.

The proposal to demolish the historic building spurred residents and planning commissioners to share their views at a tense, twohour Planning Commission meeting Tuesday, September 8.

McNally Development LLC, a company of multiple investors, wants to construct a 22-suite hotel and retail structure on the Main Street property, which would require demolishing the old McNally house. Formerly a home, it has been used as a bed and breakfast under the name McNally Cottage and, this summer, to house seasonal employees.

Commissioners and residents in attendance at the meeting say they respect the rights of the property owners, but by demolishing a historic structure, the company would be contributing to the destruction of the very reason most tourists visit Mackinac Island, for its charm and historic character.

Ira Green, who attended the meeting, was seeking zoning approval for the project. Mr. Green purchased the property last December and now is in partnership with other investors.

The home, which is in the downtown commercial district, contributed to the city's designation as a National Historic Landmark.

The development would include the vacant McNally lot west of the house lot, next to the Balsam Shops and abutting Pontiac Lodge.

At the October meeting, commissioners are expected to send site plans to city architect Richard Neumann of Petoskey, who will give an opinion on the request based on the city's architectural review standards.

Commissioner Trish Martin asked that photographs of the house and surrounding buildings be included with the materials sent to Mr. Neumann, if commissioners agree to proceed with the review stage at the October meeting. She also questioned whether the plan for the property would meet architectural standards, even though it does meet zoning requirements.

Reading a portion of the city's architectural review standards, she said, "...take into consideration to and shall find certainty that the architectural exterior features, height and general appearance and materials of exterior construction, placement of the structure on the lot, which is subject to public view in the street or in a public way, are congruous and in harmony with the surrounding structures and historic aspect of the Island and would not be unsightly, grotesque, or detrimental to the stability of the value and welfare of surrounding property, structures, residents, and to the general and economic welfare and happiness of the community as a whole."

Mr. Green offered a brief history on his purchase of the property and told commissioners that purchasing the house was a stipulation in his purchase of two undeveloped lakefront lots across the street from the house. At that time, he wanted only the lakefront lots, not the house, and he offered to sell the house to the city. Mr. Green asked the city to pay an estimated $1.7 million for the McNally house and its two lots, the same price he paid.

Even before Mr. Green purchased the McNally property, city attorney Tom Evashevski had been asked by the city to contact the McNally family to see if the city could buy the home. The family wanted to sell both house and waterfront property together, and the city could not afford that, Mr. Evashevski said.

Then last summer, Mr. Green offered the Mc- Nally property to the city, said Mr. Evashevski, and the city made an effort to acquire it, including seeking other investors, but could not come up with the money.

"It is also true that he did let me know right at the very end that he was picking up investors and that the McNally offer 'is off the table if you don't act pretty soon,'" Mr. Evashevski told commissioners. "The city did consider it, it just didn't have that kind of money. The city made an effort to find better sources, and that is kind of where it died."

In April, Mr. Green received approval from the Planning Commission to convert the bed and breakfast to three apartments.

During Tuesday's meeting, Mr. Green offered to assist with moving the house to another site on the Island.

"The truth is," he said, "we don't want to demolish this building, but we need some help in where it is going to go. This [proposed project] is not going to happen overnight. This is a year to two years away. Regardless of that, if this is something the city really wants to do, they ought to make at least $1 worth of effort to approach us and go, 'We'd like to move this building,' because we have made offers to pay the first $10,000 to move the thing."

Also in attendance at the meeting were Mayor Margaret Doud and East Bluff resident Susan Lenfesty. Both opposed the demolition of the historic home.

"The McNally Cottage belongs where it is," Mayor Doud said. "That is where it has stood for eons and that is where it belongs."

Ms. Martin asked if the house could be incorporated into the plans of the new hotel.

Mr. Green said the option is not feasible with its placement on the lot. The house, he said, has been remodeled and added onto a number of times over the years.

Mayor Doud said she is concerned with the future of the Island.

"I think we are losing the charm of this Island," she said, "and the charm is what is bringing the people here. They are not coming here for retail, retail, retail, retail, store after store after store. They are coming here to see something new, different, and unique. If we have a cookie-cutter main street, we might just as well pack it up. We are all done. I think I have maintained in the 30-odd years that I have been mayor, if we lose the charm of this community, we are done."

Barry Polzin, the development company's architect, also attended the meeting and said the building had been designed to reflect buildings on Main Street from years past.

Mrs. Lenfesty questioned his idea of preservation.

"You are probably within your rights to do this," she said, "but how in the world you can call it preservation when you build another look-alike, cookie-cutter, three tiered, balcony hotel on the street of this beautiful old Island that depends on its historic status to bring people here, when tourism is the lifeblood of this Island, just goes against everything that seems to me the Island stands for and ought to be working for. If this commission can't stop you, then so be it, but I hope you sleep well at night, because kiss it good-bye."

Chairman Bob Brown read two letters against the proposed demolition.

A nonprofit group called Save Our Island, represented by Eric Starck, sent a letter of complaint that the city would not release a copy of the zoning application prior to Tuesday's Planning Commission meeting. The group also asked that a decision on the matter be tabled for a future meeting to allow more people to attend the meeting. Names of the organization's members were not included in the letter, but Mr. Starck, a Grand Rapids attorney, is listed as the resident agent of the group in the articles of incorporation it filed with the state.

The group purchased a full page advertisement in this week’s edition of the Town Crier asking for support in saving the house.

Summer resident Brian Dunnigan, the husband of Planning Commissioner Candi Dunnigan, expressed his disapproval of the proposed demolition.

"I am writing to express my dismay at the proposal to demolish McNally Cottage and redevelop the site with a fake Victorian hotel," said Mr. Dunnigan. "This would result in the loss of one more distinctive historic building that produces the character of Mackinac Island and its National Historic Landmark designation. Demolition of McNally will take us one step closer to losing the National Historic Landmark status."

No one except the owners spoke in favor of the project, but Mr. Brown expressed his view that the commission's hands may be tied by zoning laws in this matter.

Mr. Brown said, "The pressure is put on us. We are given a zoning map. This happens to be sitting right smack in the middle of the zone. If it were on the edge or somewhere else, there would be some question on it. It leaves us in a tough position. I don't think we can sit here and, because some of us don't want to see another hotel, throw it out the door. The zoning ordinance was adopted and that is what we have to live with."

Mrs. Lenfesty asked what tools are needed to prevent a similar situation from happening in the future.

To have more control over the demolition of a building on the Island, said Mr. Evashevski, who continues to research the issue, is to establish an ordinance that requires certain conditions be met by property owners.

"I believe about the only thing we can do to affect demolition of historic buildings is to pass an ordinance that would have to be approved by land owners in a certain district and, if that were approved, we could have restrictions on demolition -- not prohibit demolition, but restrictions, kind of along the lines of what we went through with Ira voluntarily, where the municipality can explore options to purchase the property to prevent demolition. It creates more steps the owner has to go through, but, ultimately, I don't think demolition can be prohibited, that's my understanding. I think that is about the most that can be done, require these steps," Mr. Evashevski said. "It would give the municipality and community some control and some say in it."

Adding to the preservation problem is an outdated master plan that has languished in committee for five years.

The Mackinac Island Planning Commission next meets Tuesday, October 13, at its winter meeting time of 3 p.m. in city council chambers.