Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES 2000-006 RESOLUTION NO. 2000-06 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS, DIRECTING STAFF TO PROCEED WITH THE SUBMITTAL OF A GRANT APPLICATION FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION'S CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT GRANT PROGRAM; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE WHEREAS, the City Council has identified the need to preserve, rehabilitate, restore and revitalize existing historic properties is critical to the revitalization of the City of Grapevine; and WHEREAS, the City Council has created the Grapevine Historic Preservation Commission, a Texas Historical Commission Certified Local Government (CLG) Program; to protect, preserve and enhance historic districts and landmarks of architectural, archeological, cultural and historic importance and to promote the economic, cultural, educational and general welfare of the citizens of Grapevine; and WHEREAS, the Texas Historical Commission has made available National Park Service funds through the CLG Program available as grants to fund preservation planning and education activities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS: Section 1. That all matters stated in the preamble of this resolution are true and correct and are hereby incorporated into the body of this resolution as if copied in their entirety. Section 2. That a Grant Application for $8,500 by the Grapevine Historic Preservation Commission for (1) execution of an archeological report for the Nash Farm to form a basis for future cemetery preservation at the farm, (2) amending, updating and printing of the existing design guidelines, and (3) continuing education of Commissioners. Section 3. That the purpose of the Grant Application is to assist owners of historic properties with the appropriate preservation and maintenance guidelines for their historic buildings. Section 4. That the application is attached as Exhibit "A". Section 5. That the development and implementation of the Grant Application and project be coordinated through the City of Grapevine Office of Historic Preservation. The City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager, or his designated representative, to enter into the agreement and all other necessary documents with the Texas Historical Commission in connection with the grant application and project. Section 6. That this resolution shall be effective from and after the date of its passage. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS on this the 18th day of January, 2000. APPROVED: 1 William D. Tate Mayor ATTEST: Lida" Huff City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: John F. Boyle, Jr. City Attorney RES. NO. 2000-06 2 EXHIBIT_Li_ TO ' °-0-- 4.friA�6, r�E 4r)'4' Page _1___. of 1 5' .�a; �, TEXAS GEORGE W.BUSH,GOVERNOR �! c., r ( , HISTORICAL JOHN L.NAU, III,CHAIRMAN COMMISSION F.LAWERENCE OAKS,EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR The State Agency for Historic Preservation REQUEST FOR FUNDING (PART I) CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUBGRANTS Deadline for submission is October 27, 1999 CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT: City of Grapevine AUTHORIZED CONTACT: Hugo A. Gardea,Architect POSITION: Historic Preservation Officer ADDRESS: PO Box 95104—Grapevine,TX /6U99 TELEPHONE: 81f/41U-3191 CHAIR OF LOCAL REVIEW COMMISSION: Burl Gilliam ADDRESS: 3311 Marsh Lane—Grapevine, TX 76051 TELEPHONE: 817/488-7295 POLITICAL CONTACTS: MAYOR OR COUNTY JUNDGE: Hon. Mayor William D. Tate STATE SENATOR: Honorable Jane Nelson U.S. REPRESENTATIVE: Honorable Joe Barton and Dick Armey PROJECT TITLE: List each project in priority order. Nash Farm Cemetery Archeological Report Updated and Revised Historic District Design Guidelines. Commissioner Education and Training. PROPOSED GRANT AMOUNT: Attach completed budget worksheets for each project. ESTIMATED TOTAL COST: $17,000 AMOUNT REQUESTED: $8,500 ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Briefly describe relationship between grant project and local preservation goals and objectives (attach statement of goals and objectives.) Archeological Report to be included into overall Nash Farm Master Plan. Updating, revising and printing of"leaflet"design guidelines such that they may be individually packaged and mailed to property owners within the historic districts. APPLICANT'S CE r TIFICATION: Application must be signed by legal representative CLG. fSIGNATURE k , £. , TITLE HPC Chair DATE 10/26/99 P.O. BOX 12276 • AUSTIN,TX 78711-2276 • 512/463-6100 • FAX 512/475-4872 • TDD 1-800/735-2989 u'ww.tl1c.state.tx.us EXHIBIT I TO / n )-6 TEXAS Page r of ._1,7 GEORGE W.BUSH,GOVERNOR *kV H ISTORICAL JOHN L.NAU,HI,CHAIRMAN COMMISSION F.LkWERENCE OAKS,EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR The State Agency for historic Preservation PROJECT PROPOSAL CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUBGRANTS (PART II) SCOPE OF WORK: Part I. Prepare an archeological report for the cemetery at Nash Farm. This report will form a basis for future cemetery preservation at the farm and will subsequently be included in a Nash Farm Master Plan for the preservation and interpretive use of the historic farm. Local history indicates between two to nine people may be buried at the farm. Part II. Update and amend existing design guidelines for the city's historic districts. Existing guidelines were prepared in 1991. Additionally,the design guidelines will be reformatted to allow easier distribution to local property owners. This will consist of printing each chapter into individual"leaflets"that could be mailed individually as needed by the property owners. Part Ill. Education and training funds for 2 Commissioners. METHODOLGY: Part I. Hire a professionally qualified historic preservation archeologist with field experience to execute the report. Consultant will assemble all available and existing research conducted(to date)and complete any additional research needed.-See attached proposal. Part II. Hire a professionally qualified historic preservation consultant to reformat and complete the design guidelines (see attached outline). The Architectural Consultant will utilize existing design guidelines content and add additional guidelines that are missing. They will also include photographs and(existing)drawings where needed. Part Ill. Attendance at THC Annual Conference, CLG Annual Conference or NAPC Annual Forum. ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Part I. Archeological report for the cemetery at the Nash Farm. Part II. Revised design guidelines for City of Grapevine's historic districts. Part Ill. Continued education for Historic Preservation Commissioners. PROJECT PERSONNEL: Randy Moir,Archeological Consultant, Dallas,TX Marcel Quimby, BRW Architects, Dallas,TX Hugo Gardea, City staff to Historic Preservation Commission. P.O. BOX 12276 • AUSTIN, TX 78711-2276 • 512/463.6100 • FAX 512/475-4872 • TDD 1-800/735-29S9 u•u•w.tirc.statz.t r.us EXHIBIT / TO 4z2-d "°' �"E of Page � of i7 ojt �� TEXAS GEORGE W.IIUSH,GOVERNOR .- ,'16 ) HISTORICAL JOHN L.NAU,III,CHAIRMAN N . COMMISSION F.LAWERENCE OAKS,EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR The State Agency for Historic Preservation BUDGET WORKSHEET (PART III) CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUBGRANTS BUDGET GRANT LOCAL LOCAL TOTAL ITEM FUNDS CASH IN-KIND COSTS PART 1 Archeological $2,000 $2,000 $4,000 Consultant PARRT 11 ..._ _. .. .. _ Architectural $4,000 $4,000 $8,000 Consultant CLG Staff: $500 $500 $1,000 Edit Photography Printing $1,000 $1,000 $2,000 Part II Subtotal $5,500 $5,500 $10,000 PART:. III Education/Training $1,000 $1,000 $2,000 2 Commissioners $8,500 $8,500 $17,000 TOTALS P.O. BOX 12276 • AUSTIN,TX 78711.2276 • 512/463.6100 • FAX 512/475.4372 • TDD 1.800/735•229S9 www.thc.state.Lr.us EXHIBIT 19 TO 41. , v?) Page 4{ of , '7 Proposal for Historic Preservation Services: Nash Farm, Grapevine, Texas Historic Preservation Consulting Services (HPCS) October 18, 1999 Submitted to: Grapevine Heritage Foundation (Grapevine, Texas), and Ms. Peggy Riddle (Historic Preservation Manager, Grapevine, Texas) Submitted by: Dr. Randall Moir (HPCS) General Scope: The following services are proposed to assist the Grapevine Heritage Foundation with development and protection of the Nash Farmstead complex in Grapevine, Texas. This historic property is located at the southeast corner of West College Street and Ball Street and is not very far west of the historic downtown area in Grapevine. Proposed services are divided into two parts. Part I entails the proposed effort needed to check the property for historic graves. Part II entails several additional tasks recommended to acquire a more complete inventory of historic resources on the premises and evaluate their historical significance. For the purpose of this proposal, the premises consists of about a 6-acre tract bounded by College Street (north), Ball Street (east) and Hudgins Street (west and south sides). Inside this tract stands the Nash farmhouse, a large turn-of-the-century barn, several small outbuildings, a field stone well, a possible cistern?, numerous landscaping elements, a storm cellar and a dismantled grave marker. The tasks proposed here will investigate several of these features more fully and the work is described in more detail next. EXHIBIT /9 TO 'Li Page of /1 Nash Farm Proposal, page 2 Proposed Tasks for Assessing Historic Resources on the Nash Farmstead Premises Task 1-Historic Grave(s) Assessment: Near the northwest corner of the property is a dismantled grave marker set consisting of a base slab and marble upper epitaph stone. The inscription on the marble stone indicates that it was used for marking the graves of two infant children: Clint Payne (age 1 yr.) and Thomas W. Payne (age 10 mos.) who died in 1885 and 1878, respectively. A historical report on the Nash farm noted the grave marker and reported that the associated cemetery may contain up to 12 graves including possibly five slaves based on oral(?)tradition (Faxed report section reference). The report went onto note the unusual aspect of the gravestone's location and pointed out that Payne family did not reside on the Nash farm and most Nash family members were buried in the Grapevine Cemetery on Dooley Street. A cursory examination of the base slab for the grave marker by this author on October 5 suggested that it was not in its origipal 1880s location given its imbrication and positioning on the ground. This does not exclude the possibility that the marker was moved from very nearby for some unknown reason and a more detailed examination of the general area would be required to confirm this viewpoint. .Inspection of an adjacent knoll within 150 ft revealed the rounded tops of several buried field stones that also might be markers set by humans or may simply be natural occurrences. Consequently, the following work is recommended to address the issue of the possible existence of a small burial ground within the remaining 6-acre tract owned by the Grapevine Heritage Foundation. la). Review all relevant local records and sources to check on whether the Payne family stone has been moved from a nearby known location. Check with some elderly informants in the area and establish how long the stone has been at its present location. Determine if in fact, the small burial ground is in this same location or merely in the general area. This includes checking with a manuscript author and reviewing the records noted by others. lb). Conduct field visits to check and verify the information given by informants or found in manuscripts about the Payne infant's grave marker and any alternative cemetery locations from which the stone may have been removed. The Nash farm location where the stone now sits would be investigated in greater detail using a nonintrusive surface survey if no firm alternative location was identified and confirmed. These survey findings would be conveyed in a short letter report with recommendations. Step lc would be implemented to assess the possibility that the marker rests on or near the reported small cemetery if no new information was acquired and the cemetery's location remained unconfirmed. 1c). There are two options left to pursue at this point -- one involves nonintrusive field evaluations using remote sensing equipment and the other involves more traditional forms of investigation. I have used both over the years and the choice is sometimes simply dictated by cost factors, whether the nonintrusive services can be acquired at a reasonable expense, and whether the methods are expected to be productive given the field setting. Each is noted below: EXHIBIT _ TO .4-/'.1a0-04- Page ( of , /7 Nash Farm Proposal, page 3 Nonintrusive Investigations: remote sensing would be used to see if grave shaft anomalies or burial hardware could be identified by a proton magnetometer survey or similar approach. If electric power lines are in the immediate area, if subsoil conditions are inadequate or if highly ferrous rooks are scattered about, then the survey results may be unreliable. The cost and time frame of any remote sensing surveys would have to be negotiated separately. In many cases, evidence of possible graves revealed by remote sensing methods would still have to be verified by more traditional methods to confirm their interpretations. Minimally Intrusive Investigations: If remote sensing was not available or practical, then the grave marker's current location would be checked using soil cores and probes to see if any evidence of grave shafts could be identified in the immediate area. Several small control pits would be hand dug well away from the grave marker to identify the natural soil horizon characteristics in this general area. Tube cores would be used to extract soil samples and the cores would then be placed in and around the stones to see if any evidence of grave shafts was visible. A map would be made of the survey and the results recorded (photographs and slides used to document the work). The soil cores would penetrate only the upper section of burial shafts should any be encountered. Care not to hurt large tree roots would be exercised. If a single grave shaft was encountered, the survey would then focus on determining how many others might be present. Shallow shovel slit trenches may be used to define the outline of shafts so that they could be permanently marked for future reference and a report of all findings would be submitted. If the general area around the Payne children's grave marker did not yield any evidence of grave shafts, then field work would halt, and a letter report of these findings submitted with recommendations for any further effort also presented. 2) Conduct a full surface survey of the 6-acre tract and identify all other important archaeological and historical features evident on the surface. Interpret their ages and possible significance in a historical and cultural resources framework. Review the storm cellar, wells/cisterns, and major outbuildings on the premises. Identify any important artifact clusters or concentrations on the surface and add them to a site map to provide a permanent record of features and artifacts. Evaluate the major structures and features already noted on the premises and offer site management recommendations and options. Note that the ground survey work is most efficient to complete between now and next spring due to the drought and lack of thick vegetation. EXHIBIT TO 4 Page _.7 of /7 Nash Farm Proposal, page 4 Note: All work in Tasks 1 and 2 is nonintrusive and exploratory in nature. If grave shafts are identified, then their contents will not be disturbed and the work will focus on determining the number, orientations and locations without impacting any burial contents. It is understood that all work is being performed on private property owned and managed by the Grapevine Heritage Foundation (private nonprofit 501 C3 organization). As such, the survey and exploratory work described in this proposal is being conducted privately for a private Foundation. Should circumstances change, additional funding may be required if historic preservation compliance measures are also needed to meet state or federal antiquities regulations. At this time, no special permits appear necessary. The work may be partitioned out as separate tasks with Task 1 monitored step by step so that different options can be examined as data are collected. Reporting of results is limited to several letter reports at this time but may be expanded to longer technical reports should the Foundation request such option and additional effort negotiated to cover the report. The letter reports will include recommendations for any additional investigations as well as a summary of the findings and results of each step. The letter reports will be from 3 to 5 pages each including figures. All cultural materials identified in the field and any important one collected will be documented on a map of the premises (base copy acquired from the Foundation) and a Xerox copy of all notes will be turned over to the Foundation at the conclusion of all Tasks. Additional notes: All work by HPCS is performed as an Independent Contractor. The Foundation may stop work at any time within a 24-hour period by contacting HPCS at (972) 335-4839 and leaving a message to do so. All effort expended up to that point by HPCS will be invoiced and due upon receipt. All other invoices are due payable in full within 15 days of billing date. SIGNATURES TO FOREGOING AGREEMENT: Randall Moir (HPCS) Date Authorized Party Date Grapevine Heritage Foundation EXHIBIT. i4 TO Cceer2). Page e of /7 Nash Farm Proposal, page 5 Budget Notes for Nash Farmstead Cultural Resources Tasks Task 1: Payne Infants Marker &Nash Cemetery Investigations A) Obtain& review info about Payne graves & cemetery (archive sources) 1.0 pd Talk to local informants on the Nash cemetery and Payne marker history 1.5 pd Field check any new leads about alternative cemetery or stone locations 1.0 pd B) If no new info., then document & map existing marker location and site 0.5 pd Inspected entire area around the Payne marker and record observations 0.25 pd Cla) Implement nonintrusive survey to check area if time and costs are acceptable 0.5 pd Estimated cost of remote sensing (Separate Subcontract of$800 to $2,500)NA Incorporate remote sensing results into a letter report on Task 1 0.25 pd Or, Clb) Implement minimally intrusive survey methods to check for grave shafts NA Check natural stratigraphy near marker's locus for establishing controls 0.25 pd Conduct soil probe across the marker locus to check for disturbed areas 1.5 pd If no shafts evident, record negative findings and then search wider area 1.5 pd Compile letter report for Task 1 (under option that no grave shafts are located) 2.0 pd Or, C2) If grave shafts are evident, record them and mark them permanently (min. est.) 2.5 pd Compile letter report for Task 1 (under option that grave shafts are identified) 2.0 pd Additional Notes on Task 1: In all cases, a letter report on Task 1 results will be submitted to GI-IF with recommendations for further investigations, if still warranted. The Task 1 effort varies by track and results. It will entail either 7 person days (Items A, B, C 1 a, plus letter report 2 pd when no graves on property), 9.5 person days (Items A, B, and Clb with no graves located), 11 pd if graves found under option Clb, or about 12 person days (Items 1, 2, Clb and C2) if graves are found under option Clb. If more shafts are encountered than expected or they do not cluster in one area, then additional effort may be needed to document the separate groupings. EXHIBIT I TO ael��-o' Page 9 G of /7 Nash Farm Proposal, page 6 Task 2: Archaeological & Historic Cultural Resources Survey of Nash Farmstead Tract Walkover surface survey of the entire Nash farm premises (ca. 6 acres) 0.75 pd Photograph & document important historic features and resources on surface 1.0 pd Review and evaluate well, porch cistern?, storm cellar, stone work, etc. 1.5 pd Measure and add all features and important artifact finds to master site map 1.0 pd Set permanent datums to secure mapping data 0.5 pd Compile letter report on field findings and include photographs 2.75 pd Add recommendations for preservation plan and note site significance 1.25 pd The fieldwork and write-up of findings for Task 2 will require about 8.75 person days to complete. A letter report about 4 to 8 pages long with figures and maps will be compiled to present the findings and results. Additional Expenses and Reimbursables (Task 1 and Task 2) Film, developing, field supplies, bags, markers, datums: $70 (T1) + $60 (T2) $130.00 Mileage (archives, informants, site work): 600 mi. (T1)+ 350 MI(T2)= 950 MI. x$0.25 $237.50 Phone, Xeroxes/postage, printing„ two letter report productions: $70 (T1) and 40 (T2) $110.00 Other Notes: For a summary of costs by option and route, please refer to the contract cover letter dated 10/XX/99. All work by HPCS is performed as an independent contractor. See contract for additional notes and considerations. EXHIBIT, 19 TO Page of Grapevine Historic Preservation Commission Design Guidelines Subcommittee Proposed Format for New Design Guidelines Individual residential leaflets to be produced: Part I (General Information) 1. History/Procedures • History of Grapevine • • Districts and Landmarks • Historic Preservation Commission • Certificate of Appropriateness • Review Process • How to Use these Guidelines Part II (Districts and Landmarks) 2. Main Street Historic District • A Brief History • "Reading our Buildings" • "Did You Know" (segment)? • Character Defining Features • Preservation Principles • Boundary Map 3. College Street Historic District • A Brief History • "Reading our Buildings" • "Did You Know" (segment)? • Character Defining Features • Preservation Principles • • Boundary Map 4. Individual Landmarks A. Designating a Local Landmark B. "Reading our Buildings" C. Preservation Principles D. Local Landmarks: Q a EXHIBITJL TO 44 az,M-4 • Palace Theatre Page // of , /7 • Dorris-Brock House • Keeling House • Yates House • Lucas House • Yancy-Millican House Part III (Construction and Development) 5. Styles Guide A. Residential • Folk Victorian • Queen Anne • Arts and Crafts (Prairie and Bungalow) • Tudor Revival • Colonial Revival • Minimal Traditional • Cameron Homes B. Commercial • Nineteenth-Century Commercial Building • Twentieth-Century Commercial Building 6. Addition Design Guidelines One page leaflet describing basic preservation principles of additions to historic buildings. 7. New Construction Design Guidelines A. Residential B. Commercial 8. Site Development Design Guidelines • Heights • Setbacks • Parking Lots Part IV (Technical Issues) 9. Door Design Guidelines • Parts & configurations • Trim EXHIBIT TO "!yO�i) -v� aMg Page of 7■ Replacement doors &screens • Appropriate and inappropriate 10. Window Design Guidelines • Elements • Trim • Screens and Storms • Shutters • Appropriate and inappropriate 11. Garage Design Guidelines • Location • Building forms • Openings • Materials 12. Siding/Trim Design Guidelines • Types • Replacement • Asbestos and asphalt • Installation • Appropriate and inappropriate 13. Porch Design Guidelines • Elements • Materials and Form • Appropriate and inappropriate 14. Paint and Color Design Guidelines • Removal • Type (Oil vs. Water based) • Lead • Paint schemes (2, 3, or 4 colors) • Appropriateness to surface & surroundings 15. Roof Design Guidelines • Forms • Materials • Additions • Replacements @FL NM EXHIBIT TO °z i,la") - . ale ,0 of , 16. Sign and Canopy Design Guidelines • Types • Positions • Appropriate and inappropriate 17. Masonry Design Guidelines • Types of mortar joints • Mortar • Repointing • Cleaning 18. Landscaping Design Guidelines • Fences, • Trees, plants, shrubs • Arbors, Fountains • Driveways, parking lots Appendix 19. Maintenance Principles • Character Defining Features • Energy Efficiency • Entrances • Masonry • Siding and Trim • Porches • Roofs • Paint • Landscaping • Doors & Windows 20. Incentives • GTRP Grants • GTRP Low Interest Loans • HUD 203K Mortgage • Investment Tax Credit Project • Historic Homeownership Assistance Act • Property values 21. Glossary See attached glossary EXHIBIT J. TO 11/2)-4i Proposed Glossary Page of /7 For Preservation Criteria Adaptive Use Corinthian Festoon Aluminum Siding Doric Finial Arch Fluted Flashing Architectural Significance Ionic Flat Arch Area of Significance Shaft Flat Seam Metal Roof Art Deco Tuscan Footing Art Glass Conservation Frame Arts and Craft Contemporary Freestanding Sign Asbestos Siding Context French Doors Asphalt Siding Contributing Frieze Awning Coping Fretwork Corbel Furr Out Balcony Cornerstone Baluster Cornice Gable Balustrade Cresting Galvanize Bargeboard (also Cricket Gingerbread Vergeboard) Criteria Glass/Glazing Base Crown Molding Art Bay Window Cupola Beveled Beaded Board Etched Board and Batten Demolition by Neglect Float(or Clear) Bracket Dentil Leaded Brick Courses Door Types Tiffany Rowlock Dutch Glazing Bead Running Bond Flush Glazing Putty Soldier French Greek Revival Bulkhead or Kickplate Glazed Gutter Bungalow Panel (raised or flat) Dormer Historic District Canopy Double-Hung Window Historic Landmark Cap Drip Cap Historic Preservation Casement Window Drop or Ship-Lap Siding Commission Casing Downspout Historic Preservation Cast Stone Ordinance Caulking Easement Hood Certificate of Eaves Hood Molding Appropriateness Bargeboard Hydrated Lime Certified Historic Structure Fascia • Certified Rehabilitation Rake Indirect Lighting Chamfer Soffit Integrity Character Edge Board or Corner Internal Illumination Clapboards Board International Style Classic Revival Egg and Dart Iron Certified Local Elevation Cast Government Entablature Wrought Clerestory Windows Entasis ltalianate Styel Code Enforcement Epoxy(patch) Coffering Joist Colonial Style Façade Column False Front Keystone Base Fascia Kickplate or Bulkhead Capital Fenestration Knee Brace EXHIBIT 19 TO #9 •Qa - Page /.5 of /7 Landmark Porch Second Empire Style Lattice Portico Shutters Lighting Porte-cochere Siding (Drop) Fluorescent Portland Cement Sign Types HID Posts (Turned) Parapet Incandescent Prairie Style Projecting Neon Preservation Wall Tungsten Halogen Pressed Brick Window Lintel Pressed Metal Sill Louver Primer Stabilization Protection State Archeological Maintenance Purlin Landmark(SAL) Masonry State Historic Preservation Ashlar Quarter Round Office(SHPO) Clay(hollow) Queen Anne Style Stick Style Concrete Quoin Stile(stile and rail) Pitch-Face Stoop Quarry-Face R-value - Storefront Rubble Rafters Striking (brick) Mildew Rail (style and rail) String Course Molding Rake Stucco Monument Sign Reconstruction Mortar Recorded Texas Historic Terne Plate Motif Landmark(RTHL) Terra Cotta Mullion Rehabilitation Terrazzo Muntin Remodel Tongue and Groove Renovation Tooling National Historic Repointing Transom Preservation Act of Restoration Tripartite 1966 Retaining Wall National Park Service Ridge Undertaking National Register of Rolled Awning Historic Places Roof Parts Valley Association Cresting Veneer Craftsmanship Eaves Vernacular(Folk) Style Design Ridge Victorian Location Valley Vinyl Siding Feeling Roof Types Function Gable Wainscot Setting Gambrel Wall Sign Theme Hip Water Table Workmanship Jerkin-head Weather Stripping Newel Post Mansard Window Non-Contributing Pyramidal Window Parts Shed Casing Oriel Window Roofing Materials Jamb Composition Meeting Rail Pane Metal Muntin Bars Parapet Tile Parting Strip Pediment Wood Sash Pier Rust Sash Cord Pier and Beam Sash Weight Pilaster Sand Blasting Sill Pitch Sash Trim Plan Score Window Types Pointing Scupper Awning � TO � EXHIBIT Page _� of �— Casement Double-Hung Fixed Fanlight French Hopper Jalousie Lattice Round-head Sidelight Single-Hung Sliding Storm Transom Zoning EXHIBIT / TO Page , /7 of CITY OF GRAPEVINE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMSSION Goals and Objectives Issues that may be most critical to the future success of the Historic Preservation Commission and its programs in preserving and protecting the historic resources of the City of Grapevine. Some of the issues that could be considered: 1. Public Education • Regular dialogue with property owners in historic districts (meetings, newsletter, etc.) • Publish design guidelines in easy-to-use handbook form • Hands-on training for historic property owners in rehabilitation/restoration concepts and techniques (seminars, etc.) • Informing and reminding property owners of CA process, design guidelines, etc. (video) • General publicity(regular meetings with media, awards, etc.) 2. Leadership • Ongoing education of civic leaders, elected officials, etc. about HPC programs, goals • Commissioners'/staff training (conferences, books/subscriptions,visiting specialists, etc.) • Define HP Commissioners'roles in local preservation efforts (proactive/reactive?, relationship to Heritage Foundation, etc.) 3. Endangered Buildings/Sites • Local designations (develop aggressive program of securing district/landmark designations) • Create "response team"approach to crisis situations • Create"topical" approach to related issues (e.g. downtown parking, residential district defer- red maintenance problems) • Proactive program to market" un/underutilized resources (e.g. help promote close-in residential historic area for reinvestment,work with realtors to promote neighborhoods) • Develop and implement economic incentives programs (rehab tax freezes, etc.) 4. Managing the Historic Ordinance • Streamline and track non-compliance problem resolution