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