Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Landmark Commission - 05/23/2002 b V MINUTES LANDMARK COMMISSION MEETING LA RETAMA ROOM -CENTRAL LIBRARY MAY 23, 2002 MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. Deborah Douglas, Chairman Ms.Susan Abarca Ms.Sharon Brower Mr. Michael Cleary Mr. Myron Grossman Mr. Kevin Maraist Dr.Richard Moore Mr. Elmon Phillips Mr.Tom Stewart Ms. Bunny Tinker M .Alan Wahlers MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr.Alan Belcher (Excused) Dr.Thomas Kreneck (Excused) Ms.Grandis Lenken (Excused) Mr.Terry Orf (Excused) STAFF PRESENT: MS. FaryCe Goode-Macon,City Planner Ms. Linda Williams, Recording Secretary Ms. Deborah Douglas, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 4:40 p.m. The roll was called and a quorum was not declared. Upon arrival of Dr. Moore at 4:55 p.m.,a quorum was declared. ACTION ITEM: Approval of Minutes for March 28, 2002 &April 25, 2002 Meetings: Minutes for the March 28, 2002 and April 25, 2002 meetings were approved as distributed. DISCUSSION ITEMS: Old Bayview Cemetery Web Site: Mr. Herb Canales, Director of Libraries, addressed the commission. Mr. Canales expressed thanks for the Landmark Commission giving him the Opportunity t0 present the web site for the cemetery. Mr. Canales continued that about a year ago, several community volunteers approached him with the Idea of creating a web site for the Old Bayview Cemetery. Mr. Canales stated that Ms. Rosa Gonzalez made the initial contact regarding the project. Ms. Gonzales is a descendant of family that fought In the Mexican-American War. The other volunteers on the project were Ms. Geraldine McGloin, Monsignor Michael Howell, and Mr. Ray Phillips, Chairman of the Nueces County Historical Commission. Mr. Phillips added that the Nueces County Historical Commission was also a part of the web site project. Each of the volunteers contributed a great deal of time and hard work In making the web site what it is today and the project Is still expanding. Mr.Canales stated the volunteers did an incredible job on the web site and the response to the web site has been tremendous. The site has received hits from all over the country; which is very exciting. Mr. Canales briefly described the different categories that are SCANNED Landmark commission meet:Inglis ‘11110 May 23,2002 Page 2 contained on the web site and accessed each one. The web site is comprised of eight (8) categories: • General Information; • History; • Events; • List of alphabetized burials; • Search; • Message board; • Links;and • Corpus Christi Public Libraries Mr. Canales continued that the web site contains articles dating from 1842 to current February 2002. From 1845 t0 1898, there are no records. Mr. Canales stated the web site details the area history of Corpus Christi and there are approximately 1,500 web pages. Mr. Canales stated the Library was real fortunate in having enthusiastic volunteers working on this project; which minimized staffs time. The group started working on the web site about one year ago. At this point in Mr. Canales' presentation, he demonstrated how to browse through the different categories and showed how easy the web site could be accessed. After Mr. Canales' presentation, the floor was opened for questions and comments. A question was raised regarding how to log onto the web site and Mr. Canales answered that an individual could log onto the Library's web site directly or type in Bayview to access the web site for Old Bayview Cemetery. Mr. Canales informed the commission that the Old Bayview Cemetery has been designated as a Texas Historical Cemetery. The designation was recently received thanks to the hard work of the Nueces County Historical Commission through the initiation of Ms. Rosa Gonzalez. Ms. Brower asked if there was a search map for the web site and Mr. Canales answered they are working on one, but it has not been completed and Inputted on the web site. After all comments were received,thanks were expressed to Mr.Canales for his presentation and for letting the Landmark Commission hold its meeting at the Library. Gold Star Update on Placement of Marker: Ms. Faryce Goode-Macon, Staff Liaison, addressed the commission. Ms. Macon stated she contacted Mr. Tony Cisneros, Director of Park and Recreation, to see if the Landmark Commission and representatives from the Gold Star Court could have a dialogue regarding a decision that was made In January 2001 on placement of the monument. Ms. Macon continued that Mr. Cisneros is here at today's meeting, along with Mr. Leland Johnson and Ms. Betty Black, representatives of the Gold Star Court Committee. At this point in the meeting, the floor was turned over to Mr. Cisneros. Mr. Cisneros stated Improvements to the Gold Star Court was a project of the Beautify Corpus Christi in partnership with the Gold Star Court Committee. City staff was to provide manpower to do the design and develop drawings of the Gold Star Court improvements. Mr. Cisneros continued that those drawings were shelved because funding was not In place to do the projects. Mr. Cisneros stated that the Gold Star Court committee held fundraisers to have a monument made and installed for the court, which was completed. Mr. Cisneros continued it was decided that at a later date, that the approved monument would be permanently Installed in a retaining wall once funding was obtained. Mr. Cisneros continued that in keeping with the project, representatives from the Gold Star Court Committee met with the Landmark Commission in January 2002 because concern was voiced about the design/style of the monument per the approved plan/drawing. One of the suggestions outlined by the Landmark Commission was for the non-conforming monument Landmark Commission Meetingh, May 23,2002 Page 3 to be laid flat until the project could be completed. Mr. Cisneros continued that the Gold Star Committee contacted the company that installed the monument to see what could be done to accommodate that suggestion and the company gave an estimate of $4 to $6,000 to lay the monument flat on the ground,which was too costly. Mr.Cisneros continued that the cost to have the monument installed was approximately $8,000 and to pay that kind of money to have it laid flat was not feasible. Mr. Cisneros stated that Ms. Betty Black, a member of the Gold Star Court Committee, wanted to address the commission. At this point,the floor was turned over to Ms.Black. Ms. Black expressed thanks for allowing the Gold Star Court Committee to be at the Landmark Commission's meeting. Ms. Black continued that Ms. Norma Urban, Director of the Downtown Management District, contacted the Gold Star Court Committee around 1997-98 and requested the group to clean up the park area surrounding the Gold Star Memorial. At that time, there were very few markers. Ms. Black continued that the Committee had some of the markers cleaned, new markers were made, new flagpoles were Installed, and Crepe Myrtle trees were planted. The Committee's Intention was to restore the memorial as it was before and in addition, place a commemorative monument with names of the thirty-nine 1391 local soldiers who died In the wars. The Committee came before the Landmark Commission requesting support and to inform you of what the Gold Star Court Committee wanted to do. Ms. Black continued that approval was obtained from the City Manager and City Council to proceed with the project and the group moved forward. Ms. Black continued that the group felt the Improvements and work that have been done to the court were in line and they were not in error in placing that particular monument in its location. The proposed specifications for the monument were also submitted and the Gold Star Court Committee felt the finished monument was made according to the Committee's specifications. Barrera Monument Company manufactured the monument locally. The wife of the owner of Barrera Monument was a member of the Committee and their bid was the most feasible. Ms. Black continued that the Gold Star Court Committee was very pleased with the improvements that have been made and felt all involved felt the same. It was some time later that the Committee heard that the Landmark Commission had concerns regarding the monument and that this was not what the Landmark Commission had approved. Also, we were told that the Commission wanted to meet with the Gold Star Court Committee so that a solution could be found to correct the situation. Ms. Black continued that at the Master Review Meeting, several suggestions were discussed - one being to remove the monument from its base and lay it flat or completely remove it from the area and place It in the park and recreation warehouse until the project could be completed with later modifications. Ms. Black went on to say that after considering the Landmark Commission's suggestion to lay the monument flat, the Gold Star Committee contacted the manufacturing company to see what the cost would be to have the monument removed from its base and laid flat on the ground. The cost estimate received was just too expensive. Ms. Black continued that she and Mr. Johnson were attending today's meeting to ask the Landmark Commission to consider leaving the monument in place until the Committee raised the additional funding needed to finish the project. After Ms. Black's comments,the floor was opened for questions and comments. Dr. Moore, Landmark Commission member, asked Ms. Black how much money did the Gold Star Court Committee raise in their fund raising effort and grant money received and how was the money spent. Ms. Black answered that the Gold Star Committee applied for funding through several foundations and submitted approximately thirty 130) grant applications. They received money from six foundations totaling $40,000. The money covered the cost to purchase and plant the Crepe Myrtle trees, install the flagpoles and an irrigation system,and hook up for electricity to the Gold Star. landmark commission Meet-1040 • ' May 23,2002 Page 4 Mr. Phillips added that the markers were to be moved to the bottom of the bluff balustrade. Mr. Phillips continued that If the monument remained at Its current height, it would sit about 3 feet above the retaining wall once the wall was installed. Ms. Tinker stated that improvements proposed for the Gold Star Court were a wonderful idea. Ms. Tinker continued that if the project started out as a restoration, then that was what it should have been once it was completed. Ms. Tinker stated she conceded with placing the flagpoles, brick pavers, and walkway in the park, but moving the light from Its original location was departing from a pure restoration concept. Ms.Tinker continued that the Landmark Commission could have prevented the project from moving forward by insisting that the improvements be done as pure restoration and as a complete or all at one time project. Ms. Tinker continued there was much discussion about the type of monument that was to be installed and how It would look like. The drawing of the monument submitted to the Master Review Committee for approval was not the monument made and installed. The drawing approved had one panel with three columns for the information to be inscribed. Dr. Moore wanted to know where the markers were originally located and Mr. Phillips answered that several years ago, the markers were removed from their original location to allow staff to make improvements to the bluff balustrade area. The markers were removed and kept in the park and recreation warehouse until all the improvements were completed. Ms. Black restated again that they were at today's meeting to request the Landmark Commission to leave the monument in place until the money was obtained to complete the project. Ms. Black continued that the Committee was under the impression that the monument marker was appropriate and was acceptable by all parties involved. Ms.Tinker stated she did not understand why a tractor,that park maintenance crew uses to mow the grass, could not be hooked up to a large chain to lay the monument down on the ground. Ms.Tinker continued she felt the estimate given by the company was too excessive and that it should not cost that much to have it done. Mr. Cisneros stated that as the monument was constructed, it was placed on a concrete base. This concrete based would not be included in the finished project because the monument would be placed within the brick retaining wall. Mr. Cisneros continued that structurally, there are metal rods inserted in the monument that run Into the concrete base. According to the company that manufactured the monument, there needs to be a Concrete base to stand on and work from there. Barrerra Monument Company would not agree to lay the monument down until a new concrete base was laid. According to the company, to lay the monument flat without any type of base would lead to the monuments damage and they refused to do the work. Mr. Leland Johnson stated the Gold Star Committee let the bid on June 30, 2000 for a single marker to be made that would identify each individual soldier killed in the war. Once the markers were placed, there was no need for a marker bed. Mr.Johnson continued that the Gold Star Court Committee modeled the monument based on how other projects were handled. Mr.Johnson reiterated again that the Committee felt the finished monument was what the Landmark Commission approved for installation. Mr. Grossman addressed the commission. Mr. Grossman stated that it had been made clear that one group was in full support of the improvements were made to the court even down to the monument that was installed. Mr. Grossman continued that the Landmark Commission feels a little uncomfortable with the situation, because the Gold Star Court Committee has done a lot of work on the court, but the Landmark Commission wants to make sure the restoration was done correctly. Mr. Grossman continued that it is hard to say 'Landmark Commission Meetln9 11.0 May 23,2002 Page 5 after it's all done that you are not happy with the outcome. The commission is very unhappy with the outcome of the monument and Its placement,and now the thing to do Is to come up with a plan that will take us from A to Z In getting the situation resolved. Mr. Grossman stated that the monument looks horrible and it was almost an eye sore. Mr. Grossman continued that he did not know how the groups involved were going to solve it, but he recommended that additional time be allowed to work towards a solution that would satisfy both groups. Mr. Grossman stated the commission could not approve leaving the monument as it was and Just walk away, especially since the Gold Star Court Committee did not know when or If they would be able to raise the additional funding needed to complete the project. This project has been ongoing project for about the past four and one-half years. Ms. Black stated that Gold star court Committee was working on trying to find other grants and funding sources. Ms.Tinker asked how much would it cost to move the monument and Ms. Black replied that she spoke with Crystal Mead of Beautify Corpus Christi several weeks ago. Ms. Mead she was going to contact Moorehouse Construction to see what their company would charge to remove the base and monument, but she had not received a response from Ms. Mead. Mr. Cisneros stated that two vendors were contacted about removing the concrete base that the monument is sitting on, along with the three panels. The companies were not willing to accept liability in trying to remove it In case the monument was broken. Mr. Cisneros continued that to even lay the monument flat on the ground, a concrete base would still be needed. The vendors would not give an estimate to move and relocate it to the park and recreation shop. Estimates were obtained to lay the monument flak Mr.wahlers asked if the monument was moved would a new foundation be poured and Mr. Johnson answered yes. After all comments and discussion concluded, Ms. Douglas informed the Gold Star Court Committee members that the Landmark Commission's original decision still stood and was valid. Dr. Moore stated that if money was not available to complete the project or remove the monument, why was the Landmark Commission Involved and was there concern that the monument might be broken if it was moved. Ms. Black responded that the main concern was that the monument was placed in front of the stars and it was to be laid flat. Ms. Douglas stated that this project was initially brought through the Parks and Recreation Department and later to the Landmark Commission due to the National Registry designation of the area. Ms. Douglas continued the commission appreciated the hard work and effort that was done to make the Improvements to the Gold Star Court area. Ms. Douglas went on to say that the commission did not want to set a precedent by allowing the non- conforming monument to remain in the park when it was not done according to the approved plan. Ms.Tinker stated In answer to Dr. Moore's question as to why the Landmark commission was involved, it is the responsibility of this commission to ensure that historic preservation efforts are done with the utmost integrity and as close to its original authenticity as possible. All plans and proposals regarding the City's historical resources are to be reviewed by this commission before they are to proceed. Ms. Tinker continued that several local architects have made statements regarding the non-conforming monument and how it has not enhanced the Gold Star Court, but it has become an eyesore. After all comments and discussion concluded, Ms. Black stated since the Landmark Commission would not consider their request for the monument to remain in place until additional funding was obtained to complete the project, the Committee was submitting a landmark Commission Meeting • May 23,2002 Page 6 letter of appeal to City Council requesting that the Landmark Commission's recommendation be rescinded. Ms. Macon informed Ms. Black that the time frame to file an appeal on the Landmark Commission's decision has expired. According to the City Code of Ordinance, any group or individual has 30-days from the date of the board, commission, or committee action to file an appeal with Armando Chapa, City Secretary. Ms. Macon provided a copy of the ordinance to Ms. Black. Thanks were expressed to Mr. Tony Cisneros, Ms. Black and Mr. Johnson for attending today's meeting. Sesquicentennial Committee Video Production Update: Ms. Macon stated that at this time, fundraising efforts were still going on. Ms. Macon continued that another option was being considered regarding producing the video. It has been suggested that in order to lower the cost of the video production, a local provider could be used. Currently, the City has a contract with Quadrant Productions. Ms. Macon stated she wanted to keep the commission updated as to what was happening. Staff has not been able to meet with Carol Scott, so as of this meeting date, status of the Sesquicentennial Committee's fundraising was not known. Ms. Tinker stated that at the last Sesquicentennial Committee meeting, no financial report was given. Ms. Tinker continued that she heard that the Museum wants to put together a video for their "Sea Celebration" and also include history of the 1919 hurricane. Ms. Tinker stated that if the Sesquicentennial Committee does not raise the needed funds, may be the commission could consider using our THC grant towards helping the Museum produce their video. KEDT-TV Historical Film Findings: Ms. Brower stated she contacted KEDT-TV and requested if she would be able to borrow their videos on the history of Corpus Christi. Ms. Brower continued she was able to obtain two videos on loan for two weeks. Ms. Brower stated that the videos were about one hour long and they covered the late 19305 to 19505. The videos documented the way of life during that time period. Both videos were available to the schools through a purchase. Ms. Brower continued that the videos would not conflict with the video the Landmark Commission and Sesquicentennial Committee would be producing. OTHER MATTERS: Mr. Phillips informed the commission that a fundraising kickoff for the 1914 Nueces County Courthouse sponsored by the Nueces County Historical Commission, Historical Society, and Friends of the Courthouse is planned for June 3r0 and 4th. Dusty Durrill is also starting a S500 club. KEDT Radio will be doing a series about the 1919 storm during that time. Mr. Alan Wahlers, newest commissioner, was welcomed and Introduced to the commission. Commissioners and staff introduced themselves. Mr. Wahlers stated he was an architect and had his own company. He has lived in Corpus Christi for about ten years. There being no further business,the meeting was adjourned at 6 p.m. Lin city Planner Recording Secretary Staff Liaison to Landmark Commission IH:WORDWN AV.N DMARMMPYMINSDUP2.000