Historic Preservation Commission Agenda Page 1 February 20, 2020

NOTICE OF MEETING OF THEHISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION

OF BUDA, TX

6:30 PM - Thursday, February 20, 2020Council Chamber, Room 1098

405 E Loop Street, Building 100Buda, TX 78610

This notice is posted pursuant to the Texas Open Meetings Act. Notice is hereby given that a Regular HistoricPreservation Commission Meeting of the City of Buda, TX, will be held at which time the following subjects will bediscussed and may be acted upon.

A. CALL TO ORDER

B. INVOCATION

C. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAGS OF THE UNITED STATES AND TEXAS PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE UNITED STATES FLAG: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States ofAmerica, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE TEXAS FLAG: Honor the Texas flag; I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state underGod, one and indivisible.

D. ROLL CALL Chair Person - Belinda Ellis Commissioner Carman DeLeon-Wissel Commissioner Andrew Minter Commissioner John David Sanford Commissioner Michael Springer Commissioner Cheryl Peterson

Commissioner James Miller

E. SPECIAL AGENDA

E.1. ADMINISTER THE OATH OF OFFICE TO NEWLY APPOINTED HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSIONOFFICER (By Nicole Dykes) {Public Testimony}

E.2. ELECTION OF VICE CHAIR BY OFFICERS OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION {PublicTestimony}

F. PUBLIC COMMENTS/PUBLIC TESTIMONY Members of the public who wish to participate in Public Comment must complete a sign-in form and turn it intothe City Clerk before the period provided for Public Comment is called for consideration by the presiding officer.

1

Historic Preservation Commission Agenda Page 2 February 20, 2020

Members of the public who wish to participate during the Public Testimony period provided for any item on theagenda must complete a sign-in form and turn it into the City Clerk before the item they wish to participate in iscalled for consideration by the presiding officer.

G. CONSENT AGENDA

G.1. Approval of the Historic Preservation Commission meeting minutes of the January 16, 2020 meeting.

HPC 1-16-2020 Minutes.pdf

H. REGULAR AGENDA

H.1. DELIBERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION IN REGARDS TO A REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OFAPPROPRIATENESS FOR PAINTING A MURAL ON THE EXTERIOR ENTRY FACADE AND 6' WOOD FENCE OFESTERS (AKA SUPER SLICKS) RESTAURANT LOCATED AT 210 S. MAIN STREET

Front Elevation.jpgLong Fence.jpgShort Fence.jpgRevised front elevation mural (2).jpgRevised Long Fence mural.jpgRevised Short Fence Mural.jpg

H.2. DELIBERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION IN REGARDS TO A REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OFAPPROPRIATENESS FOR A STORAGE SHED AT THE REAR OF THE BUILDING LOCATED AT 100 S. MAINSTREET, AKA BROOKLYN'S

100 S. Main Survey.pdfShed and Fence relocation survey.pdf20191002_100310.jpg20191002_101004.jpg

I. STAFF REPORTS

I.1. Staff report on the 2020 Boards & Commissions Member Application Process and related matters

I.2. Damage to Brooklyns - Car impact to side of building

I.3. CLG status update

J. COMMISSION REQUESTS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

K. ADJOURNMENT Requests for accommodations must be made 48 hours prior to the meeting. Please contact City Hall at (512)312-0084, or FAX (512) 312-1889 for information or assistance.

2

Historic Preservation Commission Agenda Page 3 February 20, 2020

I, the undersigned authority, do hereby certify that the above Notice of Meeting of the Historic PreservationCommission of the City of Buda, was posted on the bulletin board in front of Buda City Hall, which is readilyaccessible to the public at all times, by 5:00 pm on February 17, 2020.

/s/ ____________________________L. Ray Creswell, Historic Preservation OfficerFacility Manager / Board Liaison

Meetings scheduled in the Council Chambers are set up to publicly broadcast meetings. You may be audio and video recorded while in this facility.Meetings scheduled in other City Facilities are set up to publicly audio record meetings. You may be audio recorded in the other City Facilities.

In accordance with Article III, Section 3.10, of the Official Code of the City of Buda, the minutes of this meeting consist of the preceding MinuteRecord and the Supplemental Minute Record. Details on meetings may be obtained from the Board Liaison, or video of the entire meeting may bedownloaded from the website. (Portions of the Supplemental Minute Record video tape recording may be distorted due to equipment malfunctionor other uncontrollable factors.)

A Public Comment period will be provided to allow for members of the public to participate and speak to the Board/Commission on any topic thatis not on the meeting agenda. At this time, comments will be taken from the audience on non-agenda related topics. A Public Testimony periodwill be provided at each meeting of the Board/Commission to allow members of the public to participate and speak to the Board/Commission onany topic that is on the meeting agenda, prior to any vote on the matter up for consideration. During these periods, the presiding officer shallroutinely provide three (3) minutes to each person who desires to speak but may provide no less than one (1) minute and no more than five (5)minutes to each person addressing the Board/Commission. The amount of time provided to each person, if altered by the presiding officer, shallbe announced by the presiding officer prior to recognizing persons to speak and shall be objectively applied to all persons speaking during PublicComment or each Public Testimony period.

Attendance by Other Elected or Appointed Officials: It is anticipated that members of other governmental bodies, and/or city boards,commissions and/or committees may attend the meeting in numbers that may constitute a quorum of the body, board, commission and/orcommittee. Notice is hereby given that the meeting, to the extent required by law, is also noticed as a possible meeting of the other body, board,commission and/or committee, whose members may be in attendance, if such numbers constitute a quorum. The members of the boards,commissions and/or committees may be permitted to participate in discussions on the same items listed on the agenda, which occur at themeeting, but no action will be taken by such in attendance unless such item and action is specifically provided for on an agenda for that body,board, commission or committee subject to the Texas Open Meetings Act.

3

Agenda Item #E.1.

Historic Preservation Commission Agenda ItemReport

Date: Thursday, February 20, 2020

Agenda Item No. 2020-154- #E.1Contact: Ray Creswell

Subject: ADMINISTER THE OATH OF OFFICE TO NEWLY APPOINTED HISTORICPRESERVATION COMMISSION OFFICER (By Nicole Dykes) {Public Testimony}

1. Executive Summary

2. Background/History

3. Staff's review and analysis

4. Financial Impact

5. Summary/Conclusion

6. Pros and Cons

7. Alternatives

8. Recommendation

4

Agenda Item #E.2.

Historic Preservation Commission Agenda ItemReport

Date: Thursday, February 20, 2020

Agenda Item No. 2020-156- #E.2Contact: Ray Creswell

Subject: ELECTION OF VICE CHAIR BY OFFICERS OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATIONCOMMISSION {Public Testimony}

1. Executive Summary

2. Background/History

3. Staff's review and analysis

4. Financial Impact

5. Summary/Conclusion

6. Pros and Cons

7. Alternatives

8. Recommendation

5

Agenda Item #G.1.

Historic Preservation Commission Agenda ItemReport

Date: Thursday, February 20, 2020

Agenda Item No. 2020-143- #G.1Contact: Ray Creswell

Subject: Approval of the Historic Preservation Commission meeting minutes of theJanuary 16, 2020 meeting.

1. Executive Summary

2. Background/History

3. Staff's review and analysis

4. Financial Impact

5. Summary/Conclusion

6. Pros and Cons

7. Alternatives

8. Recommendation

6

Historic Preservation Commission Agenda

Page 1

January 16, 2020

NOTICE OF MEETING OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION

OF BUDA, TX

6:30 PM - Thursday, January 16, 2020 Council Chamber, Room 1098

405 E Loop Street, Building 100 Buda, TX 78610

This notice is posted pursuant to the Texas Open Meetings Act. Notice is hereby given that a Regular Historic Preservation Commission Meeting of the City of Buda, TX, will be held at which time the following subjects will be discussed and may be acted upon. A. CALL TO ORDER B. INVOCATION C. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAGS OF THE UNITED STATES AND TEXAS PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE TEXAS FLAG: Honor the Texas flag; I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state

under God, one and indivisible. D. ROLL CALL Chair - Belinda Ellis Present Vice Chair Vacant Commissioner Carman DeLeon-Wissel Present Commissioner Andrew Minter Absent Commissioner John David Sanford Present Commissioner Michael Springer Present Commissioner Cheryl Peterson Present E. PUBLIC COMMENTS/PUBLIC TESTIMONY Members of the public who wish to participate in Public Comment must complete a sign-in form and turn it into the

City Clerk before the period provided for Public Comment is called for consideration by the presiding officer. Members of the public who wish to participate during the Public Testimony period provided for any item on the

agenda must complete a sign-in form and turn it into the City Clerk before the item they wish to participate in is called for consideration by the presiding officer.

No Public Comments were made. F. CONSENT AGENDA

F.1. Approval of the Historic Preservation Commission Meeting minutes of the December 19th, 2019 meeting.

HPC Minutes 12.19.2019.docx There were no changes requested for HPC’s 12/19/2019 meeting. Commissioner Sanford made a motion to accept the minutes for the 12/19/2019 meeting. Commissioner Ellis seconded, motion carried and passed with a 5-0 vote.

7

Historic Preservation Commission Agenda

Page 2

January 16, 2020

G. REGULAR AGENDA There were not regular agenda items for this meeting. H. WORKSHOP

H.1. Workshop Discussion and Presentation on the Historic Preservation Commission related matters regarding Certified Local Government (CLG) and Texas Historic Commission (THC) review comments.

Chair Ellis called the workshop to begin at 6:37pm. Mr. Creswell provided the commission with a

copy of the comments made by Texas Historic Commission (THC) regarding Buda becoming a Certified Local Government (CLG). The comments were over section 2.10.10 in the UDC. Texas Historic Commission (THC) recommended starting the ordinance with a clear purpose as to why these regulations exist. Mr. Creswell went over an example provided by THC. Commissioner Sanders suggested merging the same language with the mission statement recently adopted by the Commission. Ms. McCollum inquired about historic structures outside of the historic overlay district and Mr. Creswell explained that Stagecoach house is a designated landmark. Commissioner Ellis suggested it would be beneficial for the city to designate landmarks in order to prevent the removal or demolishment of historic structures. Commissioner Springer expressed concern the city may be perceived as forcing the participation of homeowners. Mr. Creswell explained that THC expressed concern regarding the process for the designation of historical landmark within the City of Buda and he suggested using that as an opportunity for the city to not overstep. Commissioner Sandford suggested possibly recruiting voluntary participants for historic landmark designation. Commissioner Springer suggested providing incentives to homeowners including monetary incentives to use for maintenance, if possible.

Commissioner Springer proposed that the commission ask THC to provide them with a city who’s UDC they believe is stellar and could be useful in the process for gaining CLG. Commissioner Ellis asked about the timeframe for amending the UDC. Melissa explained that it would be about 2 months turn around with the recommendations being proposed to City Council by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Commissioner Springer asked if THC’s comments were mostly about the designation process. Mr. Creswell and Ms. McCollum explained that most of the comments are over the designation processes not the design guidelines and that the TCH has provided some tips about what should be added to the UDC and what should be in the design guidelines.

The commission moved on to the next comment Paragraph B Overview Tag 2 in which THC asked how historic landmarks are protected? They remarked “In order to meet the standards for the CLG Program, landmarks and districts must be protected through Zoning Change”. Ms. McCollum and Commissioner Sandford suggested creating a landmark overlay in order to meet THC’s criteria.

In Paragraph C Tag 3 THC proposed “Instead of trying to define items within the ordinance language, consider creating a section to define terms at the beginning of the ordinance.” The comment could be disregarded as the UDC already has a section with defined terms and THC only received section 2.10.10 to provide comments on.

Tag 4 THC said “This is confusing because from the beginning it sounds like landmarks and districts are distinct and have different criteria. This is usually handled by addressing landmarks in one section and districts in another. Then going through the criteria and designation process for each.” Commissioner Sandford explained that landmarks and districts are often referenced as the same or together through out the UDC when they should be two distinct procedures.

For Tag 5 THC said, “Does this rule apply to landmark designation?”. This brought up the previous comment THC provided, and Commissioner Springer suggested that the commission could compare other cities ordinances to find the best process for the City of Buda. Mr. Creswell expressed his appreciation for the commission’s participation in these workshops.

Tag 6 THC Recommends starting with criteria for designation and then moving into the process. Ms. McCollum explained that this would streamline the process by providing the criteria necessary then how to continue the process.

8

Historic Preservation Commission Agenda

Page 3

January 16, 2020

Tag 7 THC said, “100% Owner approval is going to be hard to get for a local historic district.” Mr. Creswell acknowledged that one hundred percent of approval from property owners would be difficult to accomplish and suggested changing the language from “all” to “majority”.

In Tag 8 THC pointed out a typo. In Tag 9 THC said “Owner approval is necessary. Does the designation follow the property? Can

a new property owner opt out?” Ms. McCollum acknowledged that the designation would go to the property and that it should be clarified in other places in the UDC. She also mentioned that property owners could petition to opt out of the designation or a similar process. Commissioner Springer asked if it was possible for property owners to apply for historical significance through only the City of Buda based on the determination of those within the city rather than going through the state or federal process. He then suggested Buda create a “Landmark Overlay” for City of Buda designation. Mr. Creswell explained that the city does not currently have a process for this but Ms. McCollum mentioned that in Bastrop there are structures certified at the local, state and federal level or just local and state certification and it is something the City of Buda could do in the future. Commissioner Sandford suggested there be a tier or ranked system to determine the level of protection needed for historically significant sites. Ms. McCollum remarked that the 1992 Historic Survey would need to be updated in order to make a tier system possible.

THCs’ comment on Tag 10 asked if it is required that designated sites have a sign to acknowledge its significance. Commissioner Sandford suggested the wording be changed from “shall” to “may” as the plaque would be made at the owners’ expense and that could cause some deterrence for voluntary designation.

THC commented the following for Tag 11, “What is the criteria for designation? This clause is not appropriate for a strong preservation ordinance.” Commissioner Springer suggested that projects be brought to HPC before continuing to the Planning and Zoning commission in order to strengthen the preservation ordinance. Mr. Creswell agreed that this an area in which the city could be stronger and explained the distinction between preservation, rehabilitation and restoration.

THC commented on Tag 12, “This rating system seems to have no bearing design review, or any other process put forth in the ordinance, so why have it?” Commissioner Springer commented that the criteria would be used once the changes discussed have been made and Mr. Creswell explained that the language used may be from the 1992 survey in which the priorities were designated.

In Tag 13 THC commented, “This section should go before the designation process.” Ms. McCollum remarked that this comment goes along with what has previously been discussed regarding the designation process.

In Tag 14 TCH commented, “Language is confusing. Is this the criteria for both Landmarks and Districts?” and Tag 15 “Very confusing to have 2 sets of designation criteria. THC recommends simplifying the list into one. Or, have two lists; one for Landmarks, and one for Districts.” These comments are like other comments already discussed and the commission did not have additional remarks on these tags. Mr. Creswell then asked the commission if they had any comments on the criteria based on what is already in the UDC. Commissioner Springer remarked that the commission use the rating system in order to determine what is a Landmark and determine the priority of it and Commissioner Sandford suggested that once something is designated a Landmark it is automatically high priority.

THC commented the following for Tag 16 “The Historic Preservation Commissions’ roles and responsibilities need to be stated. Also, the creation of the Historic Preservation Officer needs to be done in the preservation ordinance. This is a requirement of CLG Program.” Ms. McCollum mentioned that there is a section in the UDC that details this and language can be pulled from there.

In Tag 17 THC commented, “In designation section, define what ‘routine maintenance’ is.” Mr. Creswell agreed with this comment and Commissioner Springer suggested that defining this would ease the process for contractors who may possibly do the “routine maintenance”.

In Tag 18 THC commented, “This seems more like a purpose statement. Also, the city should endeavor to preserve the entire structure, not just the façade.” Commissioner Sandford acknowledged that the commission has been mostly concerned with the exterior of historic sites. Ms. McCollum remarked that cities have mostly been concerned with what can be seen on the outside and usually do not get involved on what is inside the structure.

9

Historic Preservation Commission Agenda

Page 4

January 16, 2020

For Tag 19 THC commented, “I don’t think you need to mention both landscaping and parking…these topics will be addressed by the underlying zoning classification.” The commission acknowledged that it could replace this statement with a reference to codes for landscaping. THC asked in Tag 20, “Do properties designated as Landmarks have to comply?”. Ms. McCollum stated that this question goes along with previously discussed comments regarding designation.

For Tag 21 THC commented, “This should be moved to the section addressing demolition. Also ‘economic hardship’ must be better defined. See examples from other cities.” Mr. Creswell acknowledged that this is a point in which the city can improve upon.

In Tag 22 HTC commented, “Could be determined by the Historic Preservation Officer?”. Commissioner Springer commented that this would be an additional thing for volunteer Commissioner Ellis would have to take on. Ms. McCollum commented that this role would help the commission in preventing the continued proposal of previously rejected projects.

In Tag 23 THC commented, “Might be helpful to refer to the official Certificate of Design Compliance application here.” The commission acknowledged that there may be confusion under the current name “Certificate of Appropriateness” and would prefer a change back to “Certificate of Design Compliance”.

Tag 24 commented, “See comment above.” There were no comments made. For Tag 25 commented, “The fact that the property owner still needs to apply for a Certificate of

Design Compliance needs to be made clear. Would label this section ‘Administrative Review’.” Commissioner Springer commented that Mr. Creswell could do the administrative reviews.

In Tag 26 TCH commented, “This is pretty complex and would likely require the HPO’s expertise.” Mr. Creswell commented that this process is much of what he does currently when presenting to HPC.

Mr. Creswell noted to Chair Ellis the current time and Ms. Ellis closed the workshop remarking that it is a critical moment to preserve historic sites in Buda.

The workshop adjourned at 7:46 pm I. STAFF REPORTS

I.1. Update regarding the 1898 building (200 Main Street) William Ince, City of Buda Building Official, let the committee know that the bathroom renovation has been

completed and they will be working on the exterior. PEC has installed their electric box and it would be fenced in with some added vegetation. Commissioner Springer inquired about their fence and Mr. Ince informed the committee that it was an item for city council.

I.2. Staff Report regarding 211 Live Oak (FM 967) at the corner of FM 967 and San Marcos - Administrative

COA. Mr. Creswell informed the commission that the work being done are repairs or routine maintenance. Mr.

Creswell noted that the work will all be repair and replace and he provided an administrative certificate of appropriateness. Commissioner Springer asked if they had applied or been found to be doing work without approval. Mr. Creswell noted that this type of work would not require a permit as it is like for like maintenance.

J. COMMISSION REQUESTS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS The commission requested another workshop. Requested an update on the vacant chair. K. ADJOURNMENT

10

Historic Preservation Commission Agenda

Page 5

January 16, 2020

Commissioner Sandford made a motion to adjourn the meeting and it was seconded by Commissioner Ellis passing with 5-0 vote. Having no further business to consider, Commissioner Ellis adjourned the meeting at 7:56 pm.

Requests for accommodations must be made 48 hours prior to the meeting. Please contact City Hall at (512) 312-

0084, or FAX (512) 312-1889 for information or assistance. I, the undersigned authority, do hereby certify that the above Notice of Meeting of the Historic Preservation

Commission of the City of Buda, was posted on the bulletin board in front of Buda City Hall, which is readily accessible to the public at all times, by 5:00 pm on January 13, 2020__.

/s/ ____________________________ Ray Creswell, Historic Preservation Officer Facility Manager / Board Liaison

Meetings scheduled in the Council Chambers are set up to publicly broadcast meetings. You may be audio and video recorded while in this facility. Meetings scheduled in other City Facilities are set up to publicly audio record meetings. You may be audio recorded in the other City Facilities. In accordance with Article III, Section 3.10, of the Official Code of the City of Buda, the minutes of this meeting consist of the preceding Minute Record and the Supplemental Minute Record. Details on meetings may be obtained from the Board Liaison, or video of the entire meeting may be downloaded from the website. (Portions of the Supplemental Minute Record video tape recording may be distorted due to equipment malfunction or other uncontrollable factors.) A Public Comment period will be provided to allow for members of the public to participate and speak to the Board/Commission on any topic that is not on the meeting agenda. At this time, comments will be taken from the audience on non-agenda related topics. A Public Testimony period will be provided at each meeting of the Board/Commission to allow members of the public to participate and speak to the Board/Commission on any topic that is on the meeting agenda, prior to any vote on the matter up for consideration. During these periods, the presiding officer shall routinely provide three (3) minutes to each person who desires to speak but may provide no less than one (1) minute and no more than five (5) minutes to each person addressing the Board/Commission. The amount of time provided to each person, if altered by the presiding officer, shall be announced by the presiding officer prior to recognizing persons to speak and shall be objectively applied to all persons speaking during Public Comment or each Public Testimony period. Attendance by Other Elected or Appointed Officials: It is anticipated that members of other governmental bodies, and/or city boards, commissions and/or committees may attend the meeting in numbers that may constitute a quorum of the body, board, commission and/or committee. Notice is hereby given that the meeting, to the extent required by law, is also noticed as a possible meeting of the other body, board, commission and/or committee, whose members may be in attendance, if such numbers constitute a quorum. The members of the boards, commissions and/or committees may be permitted to participate in discussions on the same items listed on the agenda, which occur at the meeting, but no action will be taken by such in attendance unless such item and action is specifically provided for on an agenda for that body, board, commission or committee subject to the Texas Open Meetings Act.

11

Agenda Item #H.1.

Historic Preservation Commission Agenda ItemReport

Date: Thursday, February 20, 2020

Agenda Item No. 2020-148- #H.1Contact: Ray Creswell

Subject: DELIBERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION IN REGARDS TO A REQUEST FOR ACERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR PAINTING A MURAL ON THEEXTERIOR ENTRY FACADE AND 6' WOOD FENCE OF ESTERS (AKA SUPER SLICKS)RESTAURANT LOCATED AT 210 S. MAIN STREET

1. Executive Summary

2. Background/HistoryThe property is located at 210 S. Main Street, zoned F5H within the Historical Overlay (O-H) District.The location of the property is at the most south end of the O-H District. The location of the muralwill be on the main entry wall of the building, facing Jack C. Hays Trail.

3. Staff's review and analysisThe applicant proposes to paint a mural along the front building facade, facing Jack C. Hays Trailand along on the face of the wood fence facing Main Street. In regards to existing structure, thebuilding is not of historic significance nor classified as a historic structure.

4. Financial Impact

5. Summary/ConclusionBased on the U.S. Secretary of Interiors Guidelines, the UDC, art or murals are not addressed. However, under the COB Historic Design Guidelines and Standards, Chapter 3, Item K. Signs andGraphic Designs, Topic Sign Designs, item 9. Artistic Embellishment. "Public art is considered apositive contribution to the identity of historic areas, and signage can play a role. These guidelinesand standards should not be interpreted as preventing use of sculpture to attract attention to abusiness while still providing artistic interest"

Item 13. Painted Wall Signs and Murals. " Signs painted directly on building walls have long been atradition. Many historic signs remain on the sides of buildings and should be retained, where

12

possible with the original lettering. In contrast, however painting new signs on buildings wheresuch signage was not originally present is not acceptable. However wall murals painted on thefacade of older buildings may be accepted, subject to approval by the Commission." The building is not a historic structure, however the mural and subject matter does coincide with thetype of restaurant in regards to the subject matter of the mural and profiles the skyline of the City ofBuda with the fence subject matter.Art as a whole, is a judgment call regarding acceptance or rejection by the artisan and viewer(s). Inthis case the mural compliments the type of restaurant, and business.

6. Pros and Cons

7. Alternatives

8. RecommendationIn review of the COB Historic Districts Guidelines and Standards, and the identification of the muralby the guidelines, staff seeks the Commission's recommendation regarding a COA to paint a muralon the entry facade and along the fence facing Main Street.

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Agenda Item #H.2.

Historic Preservation Commission Agenda ItemReport

Date: Thursday, February 20, 2020

Agenda Item No. 2020-151- #H.2Contact: Ray Creswell

Subject: DELIBERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION IN REGARDS TO A REQUEST FOR ACERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR A STORAGE SHED AT THE REAR OFTHE BUILDING LOCATED AT 100 S. MAIN STREET, AKA BROOKLYN'S

1. Executive SummaryThis Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) request is for the accessory building/shed located behindthe building toward Austin and Peach Streets.

2. Background/HistoryThe building at 100 S. Main Street lies in the Historic Downtown area of the Historic Overlay (O-H)District and is in Zone F5H. The existing structure is a brick building with a court yard in the rear forcustomer use. The shed had been built on the location of an old and removed above ground greasetrap. The shed is a wood structure built on skids with a wood exterior siding and shed roof. Theshed is located at the south west corner of the property and is less then 200 square feet in area Theshed is used to store the court yard furniture cushions and accessories.

Upon further review of the shed and rear fence, it was discovered that the fence and shed werelocated within the ROW along Austin Street.

3. Staff's review and analysisIn accordance with the UDC 2.06.05 Use Chart, Accessory structures are allowed in the Zone F5H. Section 2.09.04 of the UDC, item A. 1. Accessory structures are prohibited within easements.; 2. In nocase the Accessory Structure exceed the height of the main structure.; 3. Accessory Structures twohundred (200) square feet or larger must comply with the exterior building material and relateddesign requirements for a main structure, except in the Agriculture (AG) District.When the shed is relocated within the property lines and if left in the same corner of the property, inaccordance with Section 2.08.07 Building types of the 2017 UDC, the shed would have to be located10' off the rear lot line (Austin Street) and 10' off the side property line, adjacent to Peach Street. Ifthe storage shed was relocated on the opposite side of the rear fence, it would have to be set 10' offthe rear property line (Austin Street) and 5' off the side property line. 20

4. Financial Impact

5. Summary/ConclusionThe shed (accessory structure) is less than 200 square feet, does not exceed the height of the mainstructure. Since the shed and the fence are located within the ROW along Austin street, they will haveto be relocated to within the property line and placed in accordance with Section 2.08.07, Item C. ofthe UDC. The choice of which corner of the property the Owner wishes to place it, it will have to beplaced and offset from the property line as noted in Section 2.08.07, item C. Accessory Buildings.

6. Pros and Cons

7. Alternatives

8. RecommendationStaff recommends awarding a Conditional Certificate of Appropriateness (COA ) for the shed and itmust be relocated out of the ROW and onto the property and within the property line and off set fromthe property line as defined herein and in accordance with Section 2.08.07, Item C. of the UDC, alongwith relocating the fence to the property line along Austin Street. Staff also recommends setting atime frame of 30 days to relocate the shed and fence to within the property line from the time of theof the issuance of the Conditional COA.

21

22

23

24

25

26

Agenda Item #I.1.

Historic Preservation Commission Agenda ItemReport

Date: Thursday, February 20, 2020

Agenda Item No. 2020-145- #I.1Contact: Ray Creswell

Subject: Staff report on the 2020 Boards & Commissions Member Application Processand related matters

1. Executive Summary

2. Background/History

3. Staff's review and analysis

4. Financial Impact

5. Summary/Conclusion

6. Pros and Cons

7. Alternatives

8. Recommendation

27

Agenda Item #I.2.

Historic Preservation Commission Agenda ItemReport

Date: Thursday, February 20, 2020

Agenda Item No. 2020-152- #I.2Contact: Ray Creswell

Subject: Damage to Brooklyns - Car impact to side of building

1. Executive Summary

2. Background/History

3. Staff's review and analysis

4. Financial Impact

5. Summary/Conclusion

6. Pros and Cons

7. Alternatives

8. Recommendation

28

Agenda Item #I.3.

Historic Preservation Commission Agenda ItemReport

Date: Thursday, February 20, 2020

Agenda Item No. 2020-153- #I.3Contact: Ray Creswell

Subject: CLG status update

1. Executive Summary

2. Background/History

3. Staff's review and analysis

4. Financial Impact

5. Summary/Conclusion

6. Pros and Cons

7. Alternatives

8. Recommendation

29