HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-01-27 Regular MeetingGrapevine Historic Preservation Commission
City Hall 2nd Floor Council Chambers
200 South Main Street
Grapevine, Texas 76051
Wednesday, January 27, 2021, 6:00 p.m.
In accordance with Orders of the Office of the Governor of the State of Texas, the Grapevine
Historic Preservation Commission will conduct the meeting scheduled at 6:00 pm on January 27,
2021 in the Council Chambers at 200 South Main Street, by telephone conference in order to
advance the public health goal of limiting face-to-face meetings (also called "social distancing") to
slow the spread of the Coronavirus (COVID-19). The members of Commission may attend this
meeting in person.
There will be no public access to the location described above.
This supplemental written notice, the meeting agenda, and the agenda packet are posted online
at www.grapevinetexas.gov.
The public toll -free dial -in number to participate in the telephonic meeting is 1-210-469-4097. The
audio conference PIN is 885 863 124#.
The public will be permitted to offer public comments telephonically as provided by the agenda
and as permitted by the presiding officer during the meeting. Starting at 5:00 pm on Tuesday,
January 26th citizens can submit a Citizen Appearance request form from the City's website at
https://www.grapevinetexas.gov/89/Agendas-Minutes. During the meeting, the names of those
that have submitted a form will be called on to speak in the order the forms were received.
Please submit forms by 5:00 pm on Wednesday, January 27th.
A recording of the telephonic meeting will be made, and will be available to the public in
accordance with the Open Meetings Act upon written request.
1. Call to Order
2. Citizen Comments
Any person who is not scheduled on the agenda may address the Historic Preservation
Commission under Citizen Comments or on any other agenda item by completing a Citizen
Appearance Request form with staff. A member of the public may address the Historic
Preservation Commission regarding an item on the agenda either before or during the
Commission's consideration of the item, upon being recognized by the Chairman or upon
the consent of the Commission. In accordance with the Texas Open Meetings Act, the
Commission is restricted in discussing or taking action during Citizen Comments.
3. Work Session
A. Approved Certificates of Appropriateness as follows:
#CA20-111 for property located at 403 South Main Street;
#CA20-113 for property located at 211 East Worth Street;
#CA20-114 for property located at 307 East College Street;
#CA20-115 for property located at 409 East Worth Street.
4. Public Hearing
A. Commission to continue the public hearing tabled at the December 16, 2020 Historic
Preservation Commission Meeting on Certificate of Appropriateness #CA20-109 for
property located at 840 East Texas Street, Block 5, Lot 6, D. E. Box Addition, City of
Grapevine and take any necessary action.
B. Commission to hold a public hearing on Certificate of Appropriateness #CA20-112 for
property located at 428 East Wall Street, Lot 6R, Mrs. G. E. Hurst Addition, City of
Grapevine and take any necessary action.
5. Minutes
A. Commission to consider the minutes of the December 16, 2020 Regular Meeting.
6. Adjournment
The next meeting of the Grapevine Historic Preservation Commission will be held at 6.00 p.m.
on February 27, 2020 in the 2"d Floor Council Chambers, Grapevine City Hall, 200 South
Main Street, Grapevine, Texas 76051.
In accordance with Texas Government Code, Chapter 551.001 et seq acts of the 1993 Texas
Legislature, the Grapevine Historic Preservation Commission agenda was prepared and
posted on the 20th day of January 2020 at 5.00 p.m.
David Klempin t +
Historic Preservation Officer
_(�'�--S-fAOV/,"�4k
Ron Stombaugh
Assistant Director of Development Services
H PC01 /27/21
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF TARRANT
CITY OF GRAPEVINE
Note: In accordance with Orders of the Office of the Governor of the State of Texas, the
Grapevine Historic Preservation Commission conducted the meeting scheduled at 6:00 p.m.
on January 27, 2021 in the Council Chambers at 200 South Main Street by telephone
conference in order to advance the public health goal of limiting face-to-face meetings (also
called "social distancing") to slow the spread of the Coronavirus (COVID-19). The supplemental
written notice, the meeting agenda and packet are posted online at www.araoevinetexas.aov.
With no public access to the location described below: The public toll -free dial -in number to
participate in the telephonic meeting was 1.210.469.4097. The audio conference PIN was 885
863 124#. The public was able to offer comments telephonically as provided by the agenda and
as permitted by the presiding officer during the meeting. Starting at 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday,
January 27, 2021 citizens could submit a Citizen Appearance request form from the City's
website at httr)s://www.arar)evinetexas.00v/89/Aaenda-Minutes. During the meeting, the names
of those having submitted a form would be called on to speak telephonically in the order the
forms were received. Forms were to be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, January 27,
2021. Meeting may be viewed at http:/www.araoevinetexas.aov/1059/Meeting-Videos.
No forms were received.
The Historic Preservation Commission for the City of Grapevine, Texas met in Public
Hearing on Wednesday, January 27, 2021 at 6:00 p.m. in the Grapevine City Hall,
2nd Floor Council Chambers, 200 South Main Street, Grapevine, Texas with the
following members present to wit:
Sean Shope
Vick Cox
Jason Parker
Chuck Voelker
Paula Wilbanks
Paul Slechta
Chairman
Vice Chairman
Commissioner
Commissioner
Alternate
City Council Liaison
Member(s) present via telephone:
Ashley Anderson Commissioner
Eric Gilliland Commissioner
The above commissioners constituted a quorum with Commissioner(s) Margaret Telford
absent.
With the following city staff present:
Paul W. McCallum Executive Director,
Grapevine Convention & Visitors Bureau (CVB)
Matthew C. G. Boyle City of Grapevine Attorney
David Klempin Historic Preservation Officer (HPO)
Mary Bush Historic Preservation Secretary
JANUARY 27, 2021 HPC\Minutes\2021
H PC01 /27/21
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Shope welcomed all thanking Council Liaison Paul Slechta, City Attorney
Matthew Boyle and Executive Director Paul W. McCallum for their dedication to the
Commission in not missing a meeting and thanked staff for the 118 Certificates of
Appropriateness fulfilled in 2020. He announced and called for any citizen comments
written or telephonically.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Any person who is not scheduled on the agenda may address the Historic Preservation
Commission under Citizen Comments by completing a Citizen Appearance Request
form. In accordance with the Texas Open Meetings Act, the Commission is restricted in
discussing or taking action during Citizen Comments.
There were no citizen comment requests.
WORK SESSION
Staff Approved Certificates of Appropriateness as follows:
A. Approved Certificates of Appropriateness as follows:
#CA20-111 for property located at 403 South Main Street;
#CA20-113 for property located at 211 East Worth Street;
#CA20-114 for property located at 307 East College Street;
#CA20-115 for property located at 409 East Worth Street.
PUBLIC HEARING
Chairman Shope declared the Public Hearing for Tabled #CA20-109 open for the
property located at 840 East Texas Street, legally described as Block 5 Lot 6, D.E. Box
Addition, Grapevine, Texas to the Grapevine Historic Preservation Ordinance 91-73
(Appendix G — Grapevine Code of Ordinances), as amended for the following items:
Chairman Shope called on David Klempin to present the case:
BACKGROUND:
At the December meeting of the Grapevine Historic Preservation Commission, the
Commission voted to table the #CA20-109 case to the January 27, 2021 meeting, to
give the applicant time to have an independent evaluation of the condition of the
existing Steelcase windows in the 1953 Historic Cosnahan House. The Commission
asked for this information in order to make a determination if the Steelcase windows
JANUARY 27, 2021 HPC\Minutes\2021 2
H PC01 /27/21
could be removed.
Unfortunately, this evaluation was not able to happen. Historic Preservation Staff was
informed by the applicant Mr. Jay Gravatt that without his knowledge, on Wednesday,
December 16, 2020 the Don Young window installer, without an approved #CA or
Building Permit, removed the nine Steelcase windows, destroying them in the process;
and installed nine Don Young aluminum windows.
The applicant stated he had participated in the meeting by telephone from out of state
for the December 16, 2020 Historic Preservation Commission meeting, and made the
commitment to have an evaluation of the condition of the existing Steelcase windows,
unaware that his window installer had removed and destroyed the Steelcase windows;
and had installed the Don Young windows earlier in the same day of the meeting. The
new Don Young aluminum windows are one -over -one windows which do not match the
two -over -two awning style horizontal mullions of the original Steelcase windows.
On January 11, 2021 Mr. Gravatt met with Historic Preservation Officer David Klempin,
City Attorney Matthew Boyle and Historic Preservation staff Mary Bush to review the
facts of the unapproved removal of the Steelcase windows. The Design Guidelines of
the D. E. Box Addition Historic District and the Secretary of Interior Standards state
windows are to be replaced with like (steel) material, narrow frame, two -over -two
awning -style windows. Staff asked for Mr. Gravatt to investigate replacement steel
windows of the same configuration for the house. Staff gave Mr. Gravatt the names of
two steel window manufacturers to contact for replacement steel windows.
In 1953 at the time the Cosnahan House was built, available window material options
were steel windows or wood windows. The Cosnahan House had steel windows which
were at this time the top quality windows available, and was an upgrade over wood.
Mr. Gravatt obtained a price quote for replacing the nine steel windows from Portella
Steel Windows for $33,878, not including installation. As a cost alternative, Mr. Gravatt
worked with his window installer who suggested a proposal to add aluminum bars to the
nine aluminum windows. The aluminum bars could be glued on to the window glass of
the aluminum windows to resemble the mullion bars of the two over two window
configuration of the original Steelcase windows (see mockup). The cost for this proposal
would be $3,500. This would not simulate the narrow frame unique character of the
original Steelcase windows. The Don Young aluminum windows did not match the
quality of the original Steelcase windows removed.
Historic Preservation staff contacted steel and also wood window manufacturers for
price quotes for replacement windows for the house. The steel replacement windows
were $33,878. Quotes obtained for metal clad wood and fiberglass clad wood windows
for the five front windows of the house were $4,730. and $3,662.96 respectively. This
information was provided to Mr. Gravatt by Historic Preservation staff. Staff
recommended the Marvin Fiberglass -clad windows for their more -narrow profile being a
closer resemblance to the original steel windows. Historic Preservation Officer Klempin
JANUARY 27, 2021 HPC\Minutes\2021 3
H PC01 /27/21
showed photographs and copies of the manufacturer quotes for replacement.
Chairman Shope called for the homeowner/applicant Mr. James Gravatt to come
forward to speak. Mr. Gravatt came forward and apologized to the Commission saying
he was usually one to follow the rules and apologized for where we were now. He said
he had gone ahead and instructed Mr. Crawford, the installer, to go ahead and order as
he had deemed them not safe. He thought in his mind he was telling the installer he
could not install before approved at the December 16, 2020 meeting; it was
miscommunicated for the installer to think they were to be installed on December 16,
2020. He said he was very happy with the Don Young windows and would like to keep
those in place, stating he did not know where another $5,000 would come from in his
budget as he had applied for a loan in the beginning of his remodel, which fell through
with the onset of the COVID pandemic; but he would comply with the Commission's
decision.
Commissioner Parker thanked Mr. Gravatt for his apology noting last month when this
came before the Commission it was recommended for denial, and with not enough
information, the Commission tabled to return with more information.
Vice Chairman Cox asked Mr. Gravatt if he was aware a permit was required. Mr.
Gravatt answered saying as he was the general contractor, he had told Mr. Crawford,
the window installer, to wait as he (Mr. Gravatt) could not get the permit until after the
Commission approved; saying the window installer thought he (Mr. Gravatt) would get
the permit after approval. Vice Chairman Cox said he was still dumb -founded as he
(Mr. Gravatt) had been informed from the beginning, historic preservation staff would
have to recommend for denial. Mr. Gravatt said once he felt it was unsafe, he could not
be expected to live there with it unsecure.
Commissioner Parker assured Mr. Gravatt the Commission would work through it, but
the Commission is charged with a precedent they have to keep. Chairman Shope
agreed saying their charge is to protect what was there, some would say you had better
windows to begin with. Mr. Gravatt said again he felt the windows were not secure;
Chairman Shope said this is why the Commission needed to see the windows before
they were destroyed.
Vick Cox made the motion to close the Public Hearing for #CA20-109; Jason Parker
seconded the motion prevailing in a vote of:
Ayes: 5 (Shope, Cox, Parker, Voelker and Wilbanks)
Ayes: 2 (Anderson and Gilliland by telephone)
Nays: 0
Absent: 1 (Telford)
City Attorney Matthew Boyle gave a brief explanation of this all coming about due to no
permit being obtained before work commenced. The permit is the stop gap measure as
all historic landmarked properties are marked to issue NO permits without a Historic
Preservation Certificate of Appropriateness letter of Approval on file for the work to be
JANUARY 27, 2021 HPC\Minutes\2021 4
H PC01 /27/21
permitted; therefore, no approved by staff letter, no permit to stop moving forward
frustrations. Attorney Boyle summarized this case as now with three options:
1) The applicant's application for the unapproved windows as installed;
2) Approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for an alternative; not to short Mr.
Klempin's efforts, but all preservation would have preferred to have had a third -
party to evaluate, as the City endorses no safety hazards, the steel windows
were expensive. Mr. Klempin presented two alternatives with the recommended
window being within $200 of the quote for an inferior alternative fix with gluing; or
3) Staff's recommendation, not preferred, but the fiberglass -clad window as the best
alternative.
Commissioner Voelker asked about another recent case for windows; Mr. Klempin said
those were the 214 East College Street windows properly evaluated with the saved
original windows moved to the front and the windows past restoration, replaced on the
rear with new wood windows made to match the originals. Commissioner Voelker said
he thought there was another case more similar to this one; Mr. Klempin noted the
windows on Wall Street where the original home owner had maintained the original
windows, a new owner was shopping at Lowes Home Improvement store for double -
paned windows and contracted for Lowes to replace the original wood windows with
vinyl windows. The original windows were destroyed in removal by Lowes installers and
replaced with vinyl windows with no permit; but as it was Lowes' installer's mistake of no
permit, Lowes worked with their customer incurring the expense of the replacement of
the vinyl windows with six -over -six wood windows.
Commissioner Cox said he had observed the same thing with the new construction
across the street from his home, but it was stopped and the appropriate windows were
installed; he then questioned the count on the windows for this case. Mr. Klempin
explained to help mediate this forward the rear and side windows behind a six- foot
fence would be allowed at this time as they would not be seen from the street with
preservation focused on the most critical aspect of streetscape. The windows on the
front consisting of a bedroom, bath and the three section living room windows totaled
the five windows as presented. Future replacement of any of the four Don Young
windows on the original house shall be with Marvin fiberglass clad wood windows.
Commissioner Parker asked about funds to help, Mr. Klempin said he had discussed
grant money six months ago for the anticipated leveling of the foundation, but now no
grant money due to low funding during the year -long pandemic. He noted there had
been a non-contributing shed in poor condition removed at the rear of the property.
Chairman Shope asked where they were with the three options Attorney Boyle had laid
out; Mr. Gravatt said they could alleviate the glued on mullions and reduce to two
options. Commissioner Parker questioned the motion to be made, Attorney Boyle said
to allow for the five front, visible fiberglass -clad windows. The number of five front
windows was questioned again, as it was the front bedroom, bath and the living room's
three -window -section shown on the manufacturer's quotation as "one" 12-foot window
JANUARY 27, 2021 HPC\Minutes\2021 5
H PC01 /27/21
was actually a combination of three windows placed together to appear as a 12-foot
window, therefore totaling five windows on the front of the house.
Jason Parker made the motion to approve #CA20-109, with the condition that the five
front -facing windows be replaced with the Marvin fiberglass clad wood windows subject
to the review and approval of the Historic Preservation Officer and allowing for the four
Don Young windows behind the new fence -line to remain in place; Vick Cox seconded
the motion, prevailing in a vote of:
Ayes: 5 (Shope, Cox, Parker, Voelker and Wilbanks)
Ayes: 2 (Anderson and Gilliland by telephone)
Nays: 0
Absent: 1 (Telford)
PUBLIC HEARING
Tabled case Public Hearing for #CA20-112 for the property located at 428 East Wall
Street, legally described as Block 6R Lot 6, G. E. Hurst Addition, Grapevine, Texas to
the Grapevine Historic Preservation Ordinance 91-73 (Appendix G — Grapevine Code of
Ordinances), as amended for the following items:
Chairman Shope called on David Klempin to present the case:
BACKGROUND:
Certificate of Appropriateness application #CA20-112 was submitted on December 4,
2020 by the applicant, Jim Bristol, for construction of a new two -car detached garage in
the west side yard of the house. The original house was constructed in 1903 for the
George Blevins Family as their Grapevine home, a Queen -Anne style house with a
steeply pitched roof and a double curved front porch. The house was relocated to this
site by the City of Grapevine to save it from demolition and to enhance the quality of the
housing stock in the Historic Township.
The proposed plans for the new garage were developed by architect Russell Moran
following the Design Guidelines developed for the 1903 George Blevins House, the
house is 2,654 square feet (less than the 3,400 square feet permitted) and the proposed
garage was 625 square feet (125 square feet over the 500 square feet allowed)
requiring a variance be granted to combine the 500 square foot garage allowed by the
ordinance, with 125 square feet of the 200 square feet allowed by the ordinance with a
covered side porch of 193 square feet, not included in the maximum square feet (per
the Preservation Ordinance). David Klempin, Historic Preservation Officer; Paul W.
McCallum, Executive Director of the Grapevine Convention & Visitors Bureau; and Don
Dixson, Building Official; recommended approval of the variance.
JANUARY 27, 2021 HPC\Minutes\2021 6
H PC01 /27/21
The first floor of the house is 1,625 square feet, new garage 625 square feet; total
enclosed covered area is 2,253 square feet. The driveway is 867 square feet, walkway
58 square feet and existing porch area 507 square feet. The lot is 10,038 square feet in
size. The lot coverage is 38.6%. Total impervious area would be 3,875 square feet.
Staff review of the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic
Structures Ten Criteria (attached) with regard to the property found the proposed new
garage would be in compliance. The exterior materials of the garage were to match the
materials and color scheme of the house. The garage would be painted to match the
color scheme of the house. The neighboring home on Wall Street homeowners
endorsed the plans with a favorable approval letter for the work to be done.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommended the Historic Preservation Commission approve #CA20-112 for
construction of a new 625 square feet garage as per the attached plans and
specifications with the conditions a variance be granted to combine the 500 square foot
garage allowed with 125 square feet of the 200 square foot storage building allowance;
a building permit be obtained from the Building Department; and all exterior materials,
finishes, paint colors, doors and hardware, windows and exterior light fixtures are
required to be approved on a separate Certificate(s) of Appropriateness.
Historic Preservation Officer Klempin explained this property was purchased with deed
restrictions requiring this location for a garage and per code six feet from the rear and
neighboring property lines. Designed with an upstairs storage space, the staircase
needed the extra space resulting in the need for the variance.
Chairman Shope called on the applicant Mr. Bristol for his comments or questions; he
declined saying Mr. Klempin had presented all.
Vick Cox made the motion to close the Public Hearing for #CA20-112; Chuck Voelker
seconded the motion prevailing in a vote of:
Ayes: 5 (Shope, Cox, Parker, Voelker and Wilbanks)
Ayes: 2 (Anderson and Gilliland by telephone)
Nays: 0
Absent: 1 (Telford)
Chairman called for any comments, Commissioner Voelker noted another variance.
Chuck Voelker made the motion to approve #CA20-112 as presented; Jason Parker
seconded the motion, prevailing in a vote of:
Ayes: 5 (Shope, Cox, Parker, Voelker and Wilbanks)
Ayes: 2 (Anderson and Gilliland by telephone)
Nays: 0
JANUARY 27, 2021 HPC\Minutes\2021 7
HPC01 /27/21
Absent: 1 (Telford)
MINUTES
Jason Parker made the motion to approve the minutes from the December 16, 2020
meeting as written; Vick Cox seconded the motion which prevailed in the following vote:
Ayes: 5 (Shope, Cox, Parker, Voelker and Wilbanks)
Ayes: 2 (Anderson and Gilliland by telephone)
Nays: 0
Absent: 1 (Telford)
ADJOURNMENT
Vick Cox made the motion to adjourn the meeting; Chuck Voelker seconded the motion,
which prevailed in the following vote:
Ayes: 5 (Shope, Cox, Parker, Voelker and Wilbanks)
Ayes: 2 (Anderson and Gilliland by telephone)
Nays: 0
Absent: 1 (Telford
The meeting adjourned at 6:57 p.m.
Meetings may be viewed at: http://www.grapevinetexas.gov/1059/Meetina-Videos
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS, ON THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021.
APPROVED:
CHAIRMAN
AT
Ti CEST:
C TARY
JANUARY 27, 2021 HPC\Minutes\2021 8