MINUTES CITY OF GRANBURY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGULAR SESSION THURSDAY, JUNE 28, 2018

Transcription

1 MINUTES CITY OF GRANBURY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGULAR SESSION THURSDAY, JUNE 28, 2018 The Granbury Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Granbury, Texas convened in regular session on Thursday, June 28, Notice of said meeting giving date, place and subject thereof having been posted as prescribed by Article V.A.T.C.S. with the following members present: Amber Ross * Chair Stan Wasielewski * Vice Chair Kay Collerain * Member Bob Pannell * Member Cindy Peters * Member Brett Mangum * Planner/Recorder Absent: Claudia Southern * Member Vicki Connors * Member A. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Ross called the meeting to order at 4:31 PM. B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Minutes from June 14, 2018 Regular Meeting Mr. Wasielewski made a motion to table the minutes from June 14 regular meeting. Ms. Peters made a second. MOTION TO TABLE 5-0. C. REGULAR AGENDA 1. Request of Gary Sanford for a Certificate of Appropriateness to repaint the exterior of a residence. The property is addressed as 521 W Doyle St. 1

2 Mr. Mangum addressed the Commission that the applicant plans to complete the project by September. No additional permits are required to move forward, besides a Certificate of Appropriateness. Standard term is 1 year to complete the work unless otherwise specified. Mr. Wasielewski made a motion to accept as presented. Ms. Collerain made a second. MOTION TO APPROVE Request of Vicki Nivens for a Certificate of Appropriateness to renovate the exterior of the property at 530 E Pearl St. The request includes repainting, addition, of a standing seam roof, addition of shutters, removal and replacement of front fence, modifications to porch posts, and removal of railings. Mr. Mangum addressed the Commission that the structure, while in the Historic Overlay District, is not historic (built in 1995). The applicant has 1 year to complete the work, unless otherwise requested and included in the motion. The applicant has stated that some of the items have not been finalized (such as the door). The applicant provided a photo showing where all of the changes will occur. The first item is the repainting of the exterior. It will be from the Kelly Moore Historic Lifestyles palette (Gettysburg Gray for the exterior and Hammered Pewter for the trim). The re-roofing from the current shingle, the applicant would like to do a standing seam metal roof. Standing seam metal roofs are acceptable in terms of the Design Guidelines, they are a Historic look. The third item is to add shutters to the front windows and those are going to be near the wood shutters in black or dark gray. The fourth item is to remove and replace the existing lattice and wood fence which will be replaced with a stone and iron fence. The fifth item is the front porch railing. It will be removed and will have decorative corbels to support the roof. The color will match the trim or the front door. The last item is for a new front door/entrance. This one is more of a generalized look. Ms. Nivens has not picked out the exact door yet, but she is going for a distressed wooden door, with glass trim. There may be some slight variations as Ms. Nivens has not purchased the specific door yet. It was stated to the applicant at the time that any designs outside of what are approved by the HPC will require a new HPC review and approval. For example if a wooden door with glass inserts is approved, any changes in material, color, or design are not allowed 2

3 (i.e) a wooden door without glass panels would be OK under this C. of A., but a vinyl door painted red would not). No signage was included in this application and will require a separate permit/hpc approval. Ms. Nivens came to the podium and stated her name and address. Ms. Peters asked what color will the roof be? Ms. Nivens stated the lower portion is standing seam metal, and the upper part will remain as gray shingles. Ms. Collerain asked if the applicant plans to keep the porch railings on the 2 nd floor? Ms. Nivens answered that the railings are just being replaced on the 1 st floor. Chairman Ross asked where will the shutters go? Ms. Nivens stated that the shutters will only go on the far side and not on the porch. Chairman Ross stated that the stone and iron fence stands out. It is different from anything else in that area. Mr. Pannell stated that the new fence will last a long time. Ms. Collerain asked if anything will be placed on top of the fence columns? Ms. Nivens stated nothing for now-but maybe lantern lighting or potted plants in the future. Ms. Peters asked the applicant if she would need more than a 1 year term? Ms. Nivens replied yes, this is a big project and we would like 2 years. Ms. Peters made a motion to approve the request with a condition of 18 months. Ms. Collerain made a second. MOTION TO APPROVE Request of Brian Gaffin for a Certificate of appropriateness to replace existing cedar shake roof with standing seam metal roof. The property is addressed as 703 Spring St. Mr. Mangum addressed the Commission stating that the applicant plans to start construction as soon as the Commission approves the proposed changes, and will complete work by the end of the year. This particular property is not directly in any of our Historic districts but is just across the street from the HCO, however this is one of our National Register Properties, Local Landmark and State Landmark so it does count as though it is in the HPO even though it is geographically separate. 3

4 This is better known as the Wright-Anderson-Duncan House. It is a Priority H resource and it currently being used as an office by the architect Brian Gaiffin. In this particular case Mr. Gaiffin would like to do a standing seam metal roof and the finish would be City Scape color. Historic photographs were included in the packets and the building did previously have a standing seam metal roof. Having photograph evidence to back up the requested changes is very useful when making determinations. There s some additional details as far as the specifications on the roof. It s going to be from the Berridge Company, the Cee-Lock style. Standing seam is an approved type of roof. Since this is a National Registered Property the Certificate of Appropriateness and staff report will be forwarded to the Texas Historic Commission [THC]. The applicant does not need to do anything additional as far as interacting with the THC. Mr. Gaffin stepped to the podium and stated his name and address. Ms. Peters asked if the office would be included as well? Mr. Gaffin answered the office will be included, as well as any garage areas. Anything that is cedar shaked right now will be changed to standing seam. Mr. Gaffin stated that he is pretty much ready to go with this project. Chairperson Ross asked if the THC has any guidelines on roof material that we know of? Mr. Mangum stated that he spoke with Maddie Clites who is the City s contact at THC, and what they do is defer to the local level regulations. In regards to the roof, there are no changes proposed that would alter the design of the roof structure itself. The changeout from the cedar shaker shingles to standing seam metal is merely an aesthetic change that has the benefit of providing the entire structure better protection from the elements. The Historic Design Guidelines suggest that when replacing roofing material. The owner should try to use the same material as the original, but can request approval from the Commission to use a material or pattern that is historically appropriate to Granbury and to the building. Mr. Pannell made a motion to approve as presented. Ms. Collerain made a second. MOTION TO APPROVE Request of Green Fox Marketing Solutions for a Certificate of Appropriateness for new window and wall signage at 303 W. Pearl St. 4

5 Mr. Mangum addressed the Commission that a sign permit application would need to be filed after HPC approval. Mr. Wasielewski made a motion to approve as presented. Ms. Collerain made a second. MOTION TO APPROVE Request of the City of Granbury for a Certificate of Appropriateness to auction or demolish one landmarked historic building (Granbury News-Crockett-Crawford Building) located at 519 N Brazos St. (Lambert Branch Park). Mr. Mangum informed the Commission that the Granbury News-Crockett-Crawford Building was originally located in downtown. The building was relocated to its present site at Lambert Branch Park in 2008 as part of proposed Heritage Park. The Granbury News-Crockett-Crawford Building is a designated local landmark, however this designation applies only to the structure, as the current location is not the original location of the building at the time of the construction. Landmarks whether or not they are located within an overlay district, must go before the Historic Commission for approval prior to demolition. Mr. Mangum included the 2001 survey information to the Commission. What is interesting about this building is that while it is a local landmark it is actually not a high priority resource. The reasoning behind that is because of its location. It has been moved at least once since it has been built. It is currently in Lambert Branch Park. This particular building is sitting on property that nothing is being done with. Notes from the Parks Board were in the Commission s packet to review the notes of previous discussions. In 2016 The Parks Board recommended that no further resources should be dedicated to be used for this building. It came back again in January 2017 and the recommendation was made for demolition. January 2018 there was some interest from the Granbury Theatre Company but there was no response from the Theatre Company. Looking at the buildings photos provided by the City Parks Superintendent Aaron McLain, the building is in pretty bad shape. There was a quote included in the Commission s packets from 2016 to bring the building into a usable condition, which would have cost approximately $92, Mr. Pannell made a motion to approve with the request with the following conditions: 1. If the building is not sold within 90 days, then salvage of materials will take place. 5

6 2. After salvage has taken place, then demolition of the structure will commerce. Ms. Collerain seconded the motion. MOTION TO APPROVE Request of Visit Granbury for a Certificate of Appropriateness for temporary banners at 201 E. Pearl St. Mr. Mangum stated that this is just a follow up from the last meeting for the sign package for the visitor s center. It is for 2 temporary flag banners. The height matches the guidelines, less than 12 square feet. There are 2 that are going to be placed in between the tower and the corner which is in the Historic District. Anything east of the tower is outside of the Historic District. The flag banners are going to be placed by the tower in the HPO. The guidelines say temporary signs can be up for no more then 90 days. At the last meeting, June 14 th, the Commission approved the following signs: Courtyard side (west facing wall): 4 window signs, 4 door signs 1 wall sign Sidewalk side: 2 sandwich board signs Temporary signage 1 horizontal banner (on building) Mr. Mangum also stressed to the applicant that these are temporary banners and that they should be removed by the date stated by the Commission. It is the responsibility of the property owner to manage which signs were approved when, and to take down the temporary banners or risk getting a citation from Code Enforcement. Ms. Peters asked Mr. Mangum if these particular flag signs can only be up for 90 days? Mr. Mangum said that is correct in the Historic District. The flags are allowed for 90 days so the motion by the Commission will need a time frame when making the motion. Ms. Collerain asked if both the flags would be up for 90 days at the same time, or is she going to put 1 flag up for 90 days and then the other flag up for 90 days? Ms. Hickey answered that the flags will be simultaneously. They are looking at putting one sandwich board at the tower and then one at the corner and they will put those in the area that divides from the street trying to get attention. Chairperson Ross stated that there will be plenty of signage on site. Ms. Peters said that there is already a banner up on the site. 6

7 Ms. Hickey said that the banner will only be on site until the permanent sign goes up. The banners will be kept for future use at conventions and events and so forth. Mr. Pannell asked that the Commission has already approved one temporary banner and it will be approved when the wall signs go up. Mr. Pannell asked if there will be three temporary banners up until the wall sign goes up? Ms. Hickey said yes, there will be three banners up until the wall sign goes up. The sign as presented as has to be ordered and it takes about 2 weeks to manufacture. Mr. Wasielewski made a motion to approve the request as submitted with the condition of a 90 day time frame. Ms. Collerain made a second. MOTION TO APPROVE 4-1 (Peters opposed). 7. Consider action on the Historic Commission being more proactive in recognizing and citing structures falling into disrepair. Mr. Mangum addressed the Commission and recapped what has been discussed at previous meetings regarding this topic. The core area of the HPO was split roughly into thirds and the Commission members divided up the areas amongst themselves to keep an eye out for demolition by neglect, which is a very specific set of criteria that are listed in Section 6.2.S of the Zoning Ordinance: 1. Deterioration of exterior walls or other vertical supports. 2. Deterioration of roofs or other horizontal members. 3. Deterioration of exterior chimneys. 4. Deterioration or crumbling of exterior stucco or mortar. 5. Ineffective waterproofing of exterior walls, roof, or foundations, including broken windows or doors. 6. Deterioration of any feature so as to create a hazardous condition which could lead to the claim that demolition is necessary for the public safety. Any instances of demo by neglect are to be reported to Cindy Peters who will be the point of contact with Code Enforcement. Ms. Peters will compile a record of all instances reported to her by the Commission members, see which of the six listed categories the complaint would fall under, and then forward the information on to Jeannie Johnson. Any non-demolition by neglect complaints can be reported directly to Jeannie Johnson or Rob Macumber with Code Enforcement. To track the results of any reported instances, the City s new inspection portal will be available to the public to show the status of any filed code complaint. This will ensure that the item is not brought up as a recurring discussion item on future Historic Commission agendas. 7

8 D. ADJOURNMENT With there being no further business, Chairperson Ross adjourned the meeting at 5:28 PM. 8